Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Central America

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the ceasefire in El Salvador and the Central American peace process is being undertaken by him.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Our embassies in all the countries of Central America keep a close watch on developments throughout the region, especially the progress of the peace process. Through the United Nations we support the work of the United Nations observer mission in El Salvador which has the task of monitoring all the elements of the recent peace agreement there, including the ceasefire.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the ceasefire which is under way in El Salvador and the prospects that it brings for a long-lasting peace? Does he recognise that the underlying social problems within the region—in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as well as Nicaragua—are the basis of many of its problems? Will he ensure that the vast amount of aid which has been sent into the region for military purposes will in future be for peaceful purposes so that the region's social injustices are dealt with as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Certainly, I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman said. Indeed, the Prime Minister sent a message of congratulation to President Christiani when the peace agreement was reached. Through the United Nations and the European Economic Community we shall certainly be doing all that we can to encourage the social reforms—for example, the reform of land ownership—to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We very much hope that such reforms will underpin the peace process.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not President Christiani of El Salvador deserve widespread support, bearing in mind the fact that he was elected by the people of that country and that he has to cope with the violence of unruly military officers and also the murderous activities of the Farabundi Marti Front for the Liberation of the Nation? May I welcome the action of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in giving the president his direct support.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes. The Government have supported the process throughout. My hon. Friend may be aware

that the prosecution of a number of military officers involved in the assassination of Jesuit priests was assisted by a team sent from Scotland Yard. That was much appreciated by the El Salvadorean Government and helped to bring the perpetrators of that murder to justice.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that for once—perhaps surprisingly—the House is united in welcoming the agreement and in congratulating all those involved, including the FMFLN for their part in the peace process? We are also interested in what the priorities are now for demilitarisation and reconstruction, and I ask the Minister specifically to approach our American colleagues to ask them to convert the substantial military aid that has until now been given to El Salvador into civilian aid to help with that reconstruction. Also, will the United Kingdom take the lead in ensuring that the next elections are full pluralist, democratic elections in which all elements of El Salvador society can participate fully and freely?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. As he will be aware, in June the United States Government had a sum of, I think, $21 million which had been earmarked for military aid set aside for the very purposes that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I understand that a further sum is now to be transferred from military aid to the promotion of the work that he suggests. I expect Britain and the European Economic Community to be standing ready to support the elections and the democratic process in El Salvador.

India

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State fòr Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with India.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our relations with India are now excellent. During my recent visit I had discussions with the President, the Prime Minister, and five other senior Cabinet Ministers. The atmosphere throughout was friendly and purposeful. Among other matters we discussed Kashmir and human rights.
We shall continue to support the Indian Government's courageous economic reform programme both bilaterally and at the IMF. The Indian Government have said that they appreciate our continued close co-operation in the fight against terrorism. We hope to complete work soon on an extradition treaty and an agreement on the confiscation of the assets of terrorists and drug traffickers.

Mr. Watts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's encouraging report of his visit to India. He will be well aware of the grave concerns of many of my constituents about reports of infringements of human rights in Kashmir and the Punjab. Will he tell the House a little more about what representations he made to the Government of India on those important matters?

Mr. Hurd: I underlined, as we have done before, our deep concern about abuses of human rights by Indian security forces in Punjab and Kashmir. It is fair to say that the greatest violators of human rights across the world are terrorists, but I stressed the fact that it was important for the Government of India to be more open in dealing with the accusations. I suggested that they might allow Amnesty International to play a bigger part in


investigating those accusations. At the same time, I welcomed the Indian Government's decision to hold elections in the Punjab, and I hope that all parties there will feel able to take part.

Mr. Vaz: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's visit to India, but will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the speech that he made in Luton at the end of last year? He unwisely criticised the Governments of both India and Pakistan in most undiplomatic terms. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that Kashmir is an issue primarily to be decided between those two Governments? Does not he feel that unwise comments such as those that he made do not help an already difficult situation?

Mr. Hurd: I did not find that any of the people to whom I talked in Delhi, either formally or informally, took that view. Our relationship with India, especially with the present Government of India, is such that we can talk about what is on our minds, and on the minds of many of our constituents, without causing offence. I shall not repeat what I said to the Government of India, but it is perfectly fair to say that it was well taken. At the same time, it is fair to point out to the Government of Pakistan, as we do, that is is not right or sensible for violence to be encouraged across frontiers.

Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend continue to build on the excellent relationship between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of India, especially on the question of the vale of Kashmir? Will he urge on the Government of India the importance of allowing independent observers and visitors into that region, and of taking up Pakistan's offer that independent observers should be stationed along the line of control, to deal with the movement of people and the problem of terrorism, as well as the human rights issue?

Mr. Hurd: It is important, as I have said, that all practicable steps be taken to prevent violence from being encouraged across the frontier. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I made a point of saying to the Indian Ministers whom I met that, just as they had announced elections in the Punjab, so it would be excellent if they could start a political process in Kashmir so that there would be people representing the Kashmiris with whom the Government could talk.

Mr. Kaufman: In recent months I have had the opportunity to go to Kashmir by arrangement with both the Pakistani Government and the Indian Government, and I have seen the profound suffering among Kashmiris of both religions—Hindu and Muslim. Having seen the devastation in that beautiful valley that has resulted from the conflict, and having seen the impact of terrorism, which I deplore both there and here, may I say to the Secretary of State that while, of course, the matter must first be decided between India and Pakistan, no settlement can be acceptable that is not acceptable to the people of Kashmir, both Muslim and Hindu?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman and I approach the problem from somewhat different angles, but I do not disagree with his conclusion. He is right that any settlement must be based not just on discussions between India and Pakistan, as provided for in the Simla agreement, but on the political process in Kashmir.

Mr. Stanbrook: Did my right hon. Friend say that there might be a new treaty of extradition with India? If so, would that not be a retrograde step, considering that, at present, all extradition arrangements within the Commonwealth are governed by reciprocal legislation?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it would be a retrograde step. The matter has been under negotiation, off and on, for several years now, as I remember from my time at the Home Office. Such a treaty would help reassure the Government of India that, within what is possible under the laws of the United Kingdom, we are anxious to co-operate with them in dealing with terrorism.

Commonwealth of Independent States

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States during his recent visit on United Kingdom relations with the members of the CIS.

Mr. Hurd: I visited Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia from 16 to 18 January. I held useful talks with the three Presidents Nazarbaev, Kravchuk and Yeltsin as well as with Ministers of their Governments. In each country my talks centred on the serious economic situation and military issues including proliferation. I also had a good talk on international topics with Mr. Kozyrev, the Russian Foreign Minister.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the reports that I have read in the newspapers of the latest version of the guns-for-butter strategy, whereby the republics give us their old guns or nuclear weapons in exchange for our Common Market surpluses. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, however, that, before large amounts of financial aid are made available, he will make it clear to the Russian people and Government that it is not Governments but people who create wealth? For that reason, the Russians will need to have a community in which there is private property, freedom from regulation and low taxation, with the opportunity for people to accumulate wealth and invest it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government make that clear to the Russian people before advancing large sums?

Mr. Hurd: I think that President Yeltsin is already making that clear. These are lessons that the Russian people are learning fast and hard; it is not at all easy for them. We believe that the macro-economic major help to which my hon. Friend refers should come through the International Monetary Fund and should be the result of a reform process with which the IMF is associated. That is why we are pressing so hard for Russia, Ukraine and other republics to be admitted to the IMF as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the immediate and generous sending of food aid, particularly to Moscow and St. Petersburg, is enormously welcome? Does he further agree, however, that there are many cities, towns and villages in the former Soviet Union with less famous names which also need urgent food aid? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that they receive that food aid from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. It was a point that President Yeltsin made strongly to us. In parallel with the American emergency air lift recently announced, we are offering a supply of badly needed aid to Ekaterinburg, formerly Sverdlovsk—the kind of city of which my hon. Friend is thinking—and details of that British aid are now being worked out.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Government reciprocate President Yeltsin's announcement last week and declare that British nuclear missiles will no longer be targeted on Russian cities or any cities in the former Soviet republics, including Moscow? That may be only a symbol, but it is an important one.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed our nuclear deterrent with President Yeltsin in London on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman will have seen what President Yeltsin said as a result. 1 believe that he understands more clearly than before the minimum nature of our deterrent—and that we intend to keep it.

Mr. Kaufman: Regarding that point, when the right hon. Gentleman saw President Yeltsin did he explain to him why until very recently this Government have said that a minimum effective deterrent is 512 nuclear warheads and why they are now saying that an effective deterrent could be fewer than 192 nuclear warheads?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is confused between boats and warheads. We have always said that four boats are the minimum. That is now the difference between us and the Labour party. The difference used to be much wider—before the right hon. Gentleman changed his tune. Formerly, he was in favour of the abolition of Trident, but he is now in favour of three boats. We believe that four boats are the minimum, but have always said that on those four boats the maximum would be 128 warheads per boat. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said again yesterday.

Middle East

Sir Dennis Walters: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards achieving a middle east peace settlement.

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east talks.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The issues dividing Israel and the Arabs are complex and will inevitably take much time and effort to resolve. There has neverthelss been slow but steady progress towards a middle east peace settlement since the Madrid conference last October. I look forward to a further round of bilateral negotiations between Israel

and her Arab neighbours soon. There is now a chance to secure a comprehensive settlement based on security for Israel, justice for the Palestinians and peace for all who live in the region. I urge both sides to seize it.

Sir Dennis Walters: After the early promise of Madrid, the peace talks have been disappointingly slow. To assist progress, will my hon. Friend and the EC consider telling Mr. Shamir that they will take economic action unless Israel stops its illegal settlement programme in the occupied territories and abides by the Geneva convention, which is being systematically broken?

Mr. Hogg: It was always inevitable that the talks would be slow. The issues involved are extraordinarily difficult and their resolution is complicated. I agree that the settlement policy that is being pursued by Israel is a serious obstacle to the conclusion of a peace settlement. I entirely agree that the Geneva convention—the fourth convention—applies to the occupied territories. We shall impress both those things on Mr. Shamir.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that I returned this morning from a short visit to four countries in the middle east? Does he accept that the recent Moscow round of talks has two universal consequences? The first is the conclusion that it does not do any good for any delegation to stay away from any part of the process and that all parties should hang in there and keep the discussions going with as much momentum as possible. Secondly, although it is understandable that the external leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation may be excluded at the moment, it is not understandable that the Palestinian leaders in Jerusalem should be excluded from the process.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is undesirable for any delegation to stay away. I very much regret that both the Syrians and the Lebanese stayed away from the multilaterals and that, although present, the Palestinians did not join in in a positive way. On the question of representation within the Palestinian delegation from the diaspora, which is the point that the right hon. Gentleman is addressing—

Sir David Steel: From Jerusalem.

Mr. Hogg: From east Jerusalem, so be it.
The agreement on Palestinian representation was put together carefully before the Madrid talks. I should be reluctant to see the balance changed because that may destabilise the talks. There is greater scope for a change in the context of the multilaterals than in the context of the bilaterals. Clearly, the views of Palestinians with east Jerusalem must be represented some way or another.

Mr. Adley: Following the question by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), is there not essentially a double standard when one delegation can bring whomsoever it likes to the talks, whether those people were born in the Soviet Union or the United States, and another delegation is told whom it can and whom it cannot bring? How does my hon. and learned Friend expect Palestinians to feel that they will get a fair crack of the whip while they are subjected to those double standards?

Mr. Hogg: I understand the thinking behind my hon. Friend's point. In the abstract it has a great deal of force. That said, it is most important to get the parties to start the


process of negotiation. For that purpose one must sometimes accept a composition of a team or delegation that in abstract terms is different from that which one would wish. The real objective is to get the talks started.

Mr. Ernie Ross: As part of the Minister's continued opposition to settlements, can he say how the British Government, as a member of the troika, will discharge their responsibilities under the recent protocol signed with Israel and the European Economic Community to ensure that none of the money will go to any Israeli projects with any connection with settlements on the west bank or Gaza?

Mr. Hogg: We shall have to consider the modalities when the time arises. I re-emphasise that the policy of settlements in the occupied territories is a serious obstacle to a peace settlement. I hope that the Israelis will desist. Indeed, if they were to announce their decision to desist, it would be an important confidence-building measure that could lead to others—for example, the suspension of the Arab boycott.

Sir Robert Rhodes James: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the strong opinion of all parties within Israel that the peace process is irreversible, that there is a desire to compromise and that certain comments from certain Members of this House are not helpful?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend brings a great deal of expertise to bear on this issue. I know that he paid a useful and constructive visit recently. I agree with him about the irreversibility of the peace process. That is correct.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister has said that the settlements policy pursued by the Israeli Government is a major obstacle to progress in the peace talks. Will he therefore take this opportunity of welcoming the positive statement recently made by Mr. Shimon Peres, the leader of the Israeli Labour party, that if elected in June he would put a freeze on the settlements in the occupied territories.

Mr. Hogg: I certainly welcome any statement made by any Israeli politician to the effect that if in government he would put a freeze on the settlement policy. I would hope that that would be the policy of Mr. Shamir's Government should they be re-elected in June.

EC Membership

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition of the geographical extent of Europe will be used when considering the applications of other countries to join the Community.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The treaty of Rome provides under article 237 that "any European state" may apply to become a member of the Community. The treaty does not define how this is to be interpreted geographically.

Mr. Gill: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to have regard to the stresses and strains that already exist in a predominantly Christian European Community and to consider whether they would be increased if we admitted to the Community nations with a predominantly Islamic culture?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that a Turkish application to join the Community

has been received. Indeed, the Commission has given its opinion. In so far as geographical definitions can be made, we have defined Turkey as a country which could be a member of the Community and for our purposes Turkey is regarded as a European country.

Mr. William Ross: At one time people used to talk about Europe ending at the Urals, but, given the extent of the former USSR, that is no longer a reasonable definition. Given the tremendous wealth in the far eastern regions of the former USSR, should we not consider them part of Europe if we are to try to expand the European Community for the benefit of all mankind?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I think that most hon. Members would agree that probably it is difficult to determine a strict geographic definition of Europe. The Community already has a substantial agenda for enlargement before it—an agenda in which Britain has been in the lead. Under that agenda we already have five applications on the table—two from EFTA countries and three from southern Mediterranean countries. We also have association agreements with three eastern European countries—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. That will give us plenty to work on in the next decade, and that is probably as far as we should look for the time being.

Mr. Knapman: If we are to make further progress with our EC neighbours, surely we need to build on sure foundations. Such foundations would be laid by further progress towards a non-protectionist free market. Has my right hon. Friend made any progress in that direction?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that the single market was an initiative originally pushed by the United Kingdom Government. It is due to reach its completion during our presidency in the latter part of this year. Its completion will be one of the leading priorities of the British presidency next year.

Mr. Robertson: The Government talk about the enlargement of the Community and apparently have included it as one of their objectives for the British presidency next year. How does that sit with the fact that the Austrian application lay on the table for two years before the British Government said a word of welcome to that country? When will the Government realise that enlargement will not be acceptable just as a slogan for the Tory re-election campaign, but that it means saying now, and clearly, that the EFTA countries are needed in the Community and that early membership for central and eastern European countries, according to realisable targets, should be a priority to which we are committed?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The House, the country and the rest of Europe are well aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) led the charge on enlargement and that that particular banner has been taken up with enthusiasm by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. It is well known in the EFTA countries and in those of central Europe that Britain has been perhaps the strongest advocate of enlargement. We will continue to be so.

President Yeltsin

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his last meeting with President Yeltsin of Russia on matters relating to United Kingdom relations with the former Soviet republics.

Mr. Hurd: In a long meeting with President Yeltsin in Moscow on 20 January I discussed economic reform, security questions including non-proliferation, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and relations between Britain and Russia. On 30 January I took part in the Prime Minister's discussions with President Yeltsin, following which the British-Russian joint declaration and an agreement on consular posts were signed. In the words of the joint declaration, the two countries have opened a new page in their relations.

Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had this country adopted the supine, innocents-abroad foreign and defence policies of the Opposition parties, the reforms and changes that have taken place in the Soviet Union would not have resulted in President Boris Yeltsin being the president of Russia? Does he also agree that only by standing shoulder to shoulder with our American and NATO allies have we been able to win the war against communism in the Soviet bloc? Does he agree that we must now win the war of economic survival by those countries and that this country is well placed to meet that objective?

Mr. Hurd: There are kind and unkind ways of making that point. The kindest way is to say that, had we followed the advice so loudly and frequently given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues seven or eight years ago, it is highly probable that the hammer and sickle would still be flying over the Kremlin and, more importantly, that the Soviet armies would be massed in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps a moral can be drawn from that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State share many people's concern about the fate of some 100,000 Soviet or ex-Soviet nuclear scientists who seem to be voting with their feet, particularly those who appear to have the skills to dismantle the 27,000 or so warheads, and the possibility that those skills may be lost? What discussions has he had with Mr. Yeltsin about that serious matter, and what steps will Europe and the United States take to try to secure the services of those nuclear scientists in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: We discussed that point with President Yeltsin and it is very much on his mind. He takes the understandable view that it is for him to take the first steps in Russia, which he is doing to keep the scientists in Russia. The same is true of the other republics. However, he knows that several countries, including Britain, are willing to help in that process.

Mr. Temple-Morris: During my right hon. Friend's discussions, did he have a chance to discuss the appalling slaughter that is going on between Armenians and Azeris, not least over the Armenian conclave of Nagorny-Karabakh? What can the United Kingdom do to help, and in what context does President Yeltsin's pronouncement about some form of United Nations' supervision offer good news for the future?

Mr. Hurd: The Russians are certainly trying to bring the two sides together for talks and end the fighting, but, so far, they are finding it a hard row. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who went to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe meeting in Prague last week was able to take an initiative and arrange for the CSCE to send a human rights team to the two republics to see whether it can help matters. The fighting is extremely worrying, and anyone who has listened to the comments of my noble Friend Lady Cox on the subject must be deeply worried by it.

Mr. Cryer: What is the Secretary of State doing about nuclear non-proliferation? Instead of indulging in childish comments about the number of nuclear weapons, what does he say to the 140 non-nuclear nations who signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Does not he have some regard for them? Why does not he tell Russia and the other former Soviet Union countries that we want them to get rid of nuclear weapons? Would not it be a good idea if the United Kingdom, instead of embarking on the Trident programme, abandoned it and withdrew Polaris to demonstrate our solidarity and support for the vast majority of the world's nations which are signatories to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so far behind the evolution of his party's policy. It is now in favour of three Tridents, but Opposition Members do not seem to have got that point yet. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the non-proliferation treaty. The right answer is that all those who have signed the treaty should abide by it, the safeguards in the treaty applied to signatories such as Iraq should be strengthened, and countries that have not signed it should be encouraged to do so.

Baltic Republics

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to develop relations with the Baltic republics.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We intend to develop relations actively. We are giving practical help in consolidating their independence, building up democratic systems of government and rebuilding their economies. The bulk of our assistance is being directed through the European Community technical and emergency assistance programmes. We have also committed over £900,000 to projects through the know-how fund. We sponsored their UN membership applications. We pressed in the European Community for early trade and co-operation agreements: these are now being negotiated. We are supporting early IMF membership. Finally, we are resolving the Baltic gold question, in a prompt and effective manner, which will give an important boost to the Baltic economies.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the importance that the Baltic states attach to financial autonomy? Does he agree that one of the most useful ways in which we can give them know-how is to tell them how we managed, in the light of the Maastricht agreement, to reject the principle of monetary union? Is he giving them advice, along the lines that he described, to ensure that they manage to implement the sensible planning that comes from being able to run their own affairs, as they obviously wish to do?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the connection between the maintenance of a democratic system and a change in economic structures. That link must underpin that country's forward policy. But the most important action that it can take is to enter into a programme with the IMF as soon as possible, on the back of which it will gain access to many western funds.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister extend the application of the know-how fund in the Baltic states to the environmental problems that they have inherited, in particular the devastation left by the oil shale industry in Estonia?

Mr. Hogg: As I made clear to the House when I answered the main question, the know-how fund has been heavily used in the Baltic republics, on which about £900,000 has been spent. I think that the sort of environmental problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred is so great that it is probably best dealt with by multilateral institutions.

Mr. William Powell: May I say how welcome is the strong support that Great Britain has given to the Baltic states? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Baltic states today the problems of lack of food and hunger are just as serious as, if not more serious than, those in the big cities of the former Soviet Union, but that they receive little attention? Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that everything is done to enable food supplies to be extended to the Baltic states as well as to Russia?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made a sound point. He will know that £32 million of emergency food aid has been agreed through the EC mechanisms.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister will be aware of the substantial minorities in each of the Baltic states, some of which, prior to the recognition of their independence, were being used to impede that development. In respect of those minorities, has any suggestion been made to revise the frontiers of the Baltic states? Has it been thought necessary to make any special provision to protect the position of those minorities?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and serious point. There are ethnic minorities in all the Baltic republics. An encouraging agreement has been made between the Lithuanian Government and Poland on the ethnic Poles in Lithuania, which we support. There is a greater problem in relation to Estonia and Latvia, where there are substantial numbers of ethnic Russians. In the capital, Riga, ethnic Russians are in the majority. There are no proposals to vary frontiers. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we believe that frontiers should not be changed, save with the wholehearted consent of all the relevant parties. The issue of ethnic and minority rights is probably best addressed through the mechanism of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. All three states have acceded to the CSCE.

Iraq

Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest information on Iraq's nuclear capability; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The inspection reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, circulated as United Nations Security Council documents, provide the most detailed information on Iraq's nuclear capability. Copies of the first eight IAEA inspection reports are available in the House of Commons Library. The IAEA has issued a press statement on the latest inspection, the ninth, a copy of which will also be placed in the Library.

Sir George Gardiner: In view of the assessment by a nuclear expert from the United Nations Commission that Iraq has the technology and the means to produce up to four nuclear weapons a year, is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the United Nations inspection procedures are adequate to prevent the manufacture of those weapons? Is he satisfied that an effective deterrent system is in place to prevent their deployment?

Mr. Hogg: There are perhaps two important questions wrapped up in my hon. Friend's remarks. I think that the intrusive system of inspection that we have introduced through recent Security Council resolutions is probably adequate, provided that it is vigorously enforced, to prevent the Iraqis from developing a weapon. One cannot be certain about that; one can only express an opinion as to the probability.
A different point—again a very important one—relates to the general powers of the IAEA and to its ability to monitor civil programmes to prevent covert programmes. There we are working hard to boost the inspection powers of the IAEA to try to address problems of the kind that were thrown up in Iraq.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that Iraq remains, whether now or in the foreseeable future, a potent, potential peril not only to its neighbours but to world peace? Is not it a pity that when we had the chance we did not finish the job?

Mr. Hogg: I think that Saddam Hussein is much less potent than he was, but I accept that it is a brutal regime and that it poses a threat to world peace. The question whether we should have proceeded with the Gulf war is another issue, but I remind the House of the repeated statements by my right hon. Friend, President Bush and others as to the limited purpose of that operation. We were acting under the authority of the Security Council for the purpose authorised by the Security Council, and that did not extend to the invasion of Iraq otherwise than for the purpose of driving it out of Kuwait.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the United Nations inspectors in Iraq who suffered harassment while carrying out a vital duty on behalf of us all? May I wish my hon. and learned Friend well in getting proper safeguards over the vexed problem of undisclosed sites?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The House will know that 46 British inspectors have been involved in the process of inspection within Iraq. Certainly I pay tribute to them and to their colleagues from other countries.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, yes, it is important to enhance the verification and inspection powers of IAEA. I hope that we shall succeed in doing that, especially with regard to special inspections of previously undeclared sites.

Mr. Galloway: According to Mordechai Vanunu, who is serving 18 years in solitary confinement, Israel has more than 200 nuclear warheads capable of reaching even the Soviet Union. Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons—the same abuse of international treaties—but Iraq is not?

Mr. Hogg: We are very anxious to promote a total dismantling of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in reducing nuclear weapons in Europe since 1983.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Since 1983, as a result of both NATO's resilience and its willingness to respond rapidly to change. significant progress has been made in reducing nuclear weapons. The 1987 intermediate nuclear forces treaty eliminated all United States and Soviet ground-based intermediate range nuclear missiles. Last autumn President Bush and President Gorbachev announced the elimination of ground-based, short-range nuclear weapons, an undertaking which the leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States has agreed to honour. The United Kingdom is also playing a full part by halving our sub-strategic stockpile. President Bush's recent initiative on strategic arms takes this a step further, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear last week that we welcome President Yeltsin's commitment to deep cuts in super-power arsenals.

Mr. Thompson: My hon. and learned Friend's reply is very welcome. Does he recall the debate that took place some years ago about the deployment of cruise missiles? Does he recall that resulting NATO policy has been successful? Does he also recall the attitude of some Opposition politicians and, indeed, many local councillors in Norwich who actively opposed NATO and its policies at that time? Does he share my hope that a lesson has been learnt from that?

Mr. Hogg: I rather doubt whether the lesson has been fully learnt by Opposition Members, but the reference to "some Opposition politicians" is too general; we ought to make it more particular. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was a strong opponent of the deployment of cruise missiles. Had that policy prevailed, I doubt whether we would have had even the INF treaty.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister recall the remark made by President Yeltsin the other day which so delighted the Prime Minister—that Britain's nuclear weapons were irrelevant and of no consequence in the discussions about nuclear disarmament? Does not that remark demonstrate that we never had an independent nuclear deterrent, as neither President Yeltsin nor anyone else in the Soviet Union accepted it as a deterrent; and that we have poured tens of billions of pounds down the drain trying to maintain that mystique?

Mr. Hogg: That question merely illustrates the fact that the Labour party is historically a party of unilateral disarmament and that, by prejudice and policy, it is to a considerable degree still a party of unilateral disarmament.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the out-of-date nuclear systems that we are withdrawing from Europe have ensured that Europe is a very much safer place, and that the minimum deterrence that we are planning with Trident should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, in practice as well as in theory?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree. That is why I deplore the various policy statements made by the right hon. Member for Gorton in the past opposing the deployment of Trident. That was an entirely wrong policy, and I think it time that he apologised to the House for having espoused it.

Hong Kong

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the number of seats that will be directly elected to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong in 1995.

Mr. Hurd: Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to record the shock with which the Government and, I imagine, the whole House heard of the tragedy of the deaths of 21 Vietnamese in the Shek Kong camp in Hong Kong on 3 and 4 February. Our sympathy goes to the bereaved and the injured.
As for the question on the Order Paper, we have two linked objectives. First, we want steady progress towards a greater degree of democracy in Hong Kong. Secondly, we want this progress to be sustained without interruption after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. In order to achieve that, it is obviously necessary to discuss arrangements for the next elections—the 1995 elections—with the Chinese Government when the time is right.

Mr. Martin: Since Tiananmen square, the Hong Kong community has been very worried about the future. I hope that every step will be taken to negotiate the best possible deal for a democratic future for Hong Kong. Will the Minister make sure that such assurances are given to the hard-working community in Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: Most people in Hong Kong have two ambitions, which are not always easy to reconcile. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the first; in my original answer, I showed how we intend to work towards it. The second is the desire that the transition between now and 1997 and thereafter should be smooth and that the principle of two systems in one country should be honoured. We repeatedly emphasise that point to the Chinese Government, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did to Mr. Li Peng in New York last week.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Governor of Hong Kong my congratulations and those of the House on the skilful and successful way in which he has conducted the affairs of Hong Kong in difficult circumstances for the past five years? Will he confirm that contrary to some suspicions expressed in various parts of the media and by some politicians, the


major factor in the mind of Her Majesty's Government when forming their policy towards Hong Kong is protecting the interests of Hong Kong and its people?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about Sir David Wilson and also about his second point. We try to make it clear to people in Hong Kong and to the Government of China that the main component in our relationship with the People's Republic of China must be Hong Kong and carrying the 1984 agreement to success.

Mr. Loyden: What are the impediments to the universal franchise for Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: That it would come to an abrupt end in 1997.

Commonwealth of Independent States

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent international initiatives have been sponsored by the United Kingdom concerning the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The United Kingdom is supporting the applications of states from the Commonwealth of Independent States to join the United Nations and the IMF. We are consulting closely our western partners and allies to ensure that the many economic and security questions arising from the dissolution of the former Soviet Union are tackled in an orderly fashion. We have invited all the members of the CIS to open full diplomatic relations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has launched a new scheme to bring to Britain for work experience 1,000 secondees from the CIS. We supported the accession of the CIS states to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend has listed a series of initiatives taken by the Government in relation to the member states of the CIS. Is not it important, especially in the economic negotiations, that the leading role of the International Monetary Fund is stressed, but that we should be cautious about the way in which the IMF responds to the various questions raised by members of the CIS? The sums involved are potentially huge, and we are anxious that they are properly spent and that the reform programmes are in place.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's emphasis on the involvement of the IMF in the economic reconstruction of Russia and the other republics of the CIS. On the back of such IMF programmes, it will be possible to give yet further assistance to the republics of the CIS.

Mr. Dalyell: On security, is not the most urgent initiative to try to help the republics with the leaking trigger mechanisms of many of the nuclear devices on their territory? Should not we as a practical matter offer them the facilities of Burghfield and Dounreay to do something about the beryllium and other toxic compounds which are doubtless leaking from ill-maintained equipment? Even the manuals have been taken away by those who have found jobs in Iran and elsewhere.

Mr. Hogg: There are at least two priorities that we need to address. First, there is the question of making safe the

many missiles and warheads that were spread throughout the CIS. Secondly, there is the question of scientists with particular knowledge. On the latter point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it plain in his statement that we shall explore further with Russia and the other republics how best we can assist in the provision of employment for the scientists within the CIS to prevent them from going abroad.
There are also important questions about the handling, safeguarding and transport of missile systems. A team will go out to Russia from this country during the week beginning 10 February to see what part we can play in that process.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent Washington conference on aid for the republics of the former Soviet Union.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the conference and co-chaired the working group on food. The conference was a success and will help the west to translate its assistance into effective action on the ground. Active follow-up with the former Soviet republics is now well in hand.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Did the subject of the know-how fund and the question whether there might be Russian secondees to British financial, legal and insurance firms as part of the effort arise?

Mrs. Chalker: Neither the know-how fund nor the announcement of the places for 1,000 secondees was part of the Washington conference. However, the know-how fund is doing extremely good work throughout the former Soviet republics, where we have been asked for that help, as it is in the rest of central and eastern Europe. The 1,000 places which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the week before last are already being found and offered by British industry and British institutions. We shall forward the work for the 1,000 secondees to come to this country as speedily as we can.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that one of the most positive actions that the Government could take would be to encourage the republics of the former Soviet Union to cut arms expenditure? Does she agree that we should build on the remarkable achievement of the Kazakhstani people who, before the break-up of the Soviet Union, succeeded in closing the main nuclear test site in Kazakhstan? Would not an extension and strengthening of the nuclear test ban treaty be a means of helping the Soviet people?

Mrs. Chalker: The most important thing that Kazakhstan could do would be to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Of course, all the republics of the former Soviet Union would do well to turn their energies to creating growth in their economies. We shall do our best to help them, but the west cannot solve the problems of the CIS for it. We are involved in an exercise of partnership through sharing know-how with those republics in a wide variety of different areas, but any changes must necessarily be made by the republics themselves.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the Government's objectives for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The Government's objectives for UNCED are the signature of global conventions on climate change and biodiversity; a statement of principles on forests; a comprehensive plan

for the 21st century; a short earth charter of environmental principles; and reinforcement of existing international environmental institutions.

Mr. Paice: I am sure that the House very much hopes that the Government's objectives are achieved because they will be a major step towards solving the issues of the international environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that that approach contrasts greatly with the latest approach from Brussels, which is that international bodies should be involved in deciding even where we erect a front porch?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is clear that progress at UNCED will be made by all the participants that attend. It will be a matter for each national Government to play their part in trying to bring about those objectives.

Personal Statement

Mr. Robert Hayward: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. On Friday last, I spoke in the debate on Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I was called at 2.16 pm, and from the outset I did not expect to be able to complete my speech by 2.30 pm. On being asked by the hon. Members for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) whether I was talking out the Bill, I replied:
I am not going to talk it out; I am going to make my views known."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1258.]
I now recognise that the effect of my words was to mislead hon. Members and that Members were entitled to assume that I intended to resume my seat before 2.30 pm. I deeply regret having misled hon. Members in that way. I offer my unreserved apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow hon. Members.

Points of Order

Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request today for a statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? As you know, the citizens charter is the jewel in the crown of the Prime Minister's Administration. Seven months after the event, apparently a citizens charter for Northern Ireland—the first one—is about to be launched in Belfast. By launching it in such a hole-in-the-corner way, the Secretary of State is avoiding questions in this House and is putting at a serious disadvantage those Ulster Members of Parliament who are attending to the business of the House. They are being kept in ignorance of the citizens charter, cannot comment on it and do not know what is contained in it.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for any statement outside this House. However, I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench who are responsible.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I request a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland both about yesterday's incident in Northern Ireland and about the most recent incident today, in which, I believe, another six people were killed in one multiple murder attack? It is essential that a Minister makes a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I am sure that the whole House has deep sympathy with those affected by the events in Ulster at the moment, and what the hon. Gentleman said will have been noted.

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, all hon. Members will have distinctly heard the Prime Minister ask, whether inadvertently or not, the rhetorical question, "Did we cause the recession?" The Prime Minister's question was recorded on television and radio, yet it does not appear in the Official Report. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give me any guidance on how the Prime Minister's question came to be removed from the Official Report?

Mr. Speaker: I should need notice of that question to look into it—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Another Government cut!

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to read his mind, but it occurred to me that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) might have been referring to the fact that Opposition Members were saying, "Answer, answer." That kind of rhetorical question would not appear in Hansard, because if such comments did, there would not be room for much else. If the Prime Minister's whole answer has disappeared, however, that is a very serious matter, and I shall look into it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect you to answer my question immediately, but I think that it is a serious point.
Hansard is the official report of the proceedings of the House, and takes precedence over any other record of our proceedings; yet, simply by watching the videotape—as


hon. Members know, we now have a video record of everything that occurs in the House—we can see that we are now in a totally ludicrous situation. We can read the words in Hansard, and then, by observing what has happened on the videotape, see clearly that what actually happened is not what is recorded in Hansard.
According to the procedures of the House, the records in Hansard are deemed to be the official report of the House. Surely common sense shouts at us that, in future, the proper, official record of the House must be that which is preserved on videotape, so that we can all see and hear it. I ask you to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. We shall make ourselves look very silly unless we resolve it quickly. Yesterday's record will clearly show—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has made that point before.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it further to this point?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason why the whole of the Prime Minister's answer could not be heard was the barracking of Opposition Members when the Prime Minister had uttered only a few words. We were able to hear what he was saying, but Opposition Members deliberately blocked it out. I have the record here.

Mr. Speaker: That did not exactly follow the previous point of order, but I shall deal with both together.
First, let me say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that yesterday's was a very noisy Prime Minister's Question Time: even I had difficulty in hearing what was said. Secondly, I say to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that it has always been the rule in the House that Hansard is the official report. If the hon. Gentleman wants to change that, he must understand that it can be done only by direction of the House.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Department of Health for a statement to be made by a Minister, following the occasion during this morning's sitting of European Standing Committee B, when the Committee voted against Government policy? May we have a statement from the Government to the effect that they will now back the European proposal to ban the advertising of tobacco throughout the Community?

Mr. Speaker: If that took place during a Standing Committee sitting, it is not a matter for me to deal with here.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that we are approaching dangerous ground if we are to allow Hansard to report "noises off" during Prime Minister's Question Time. It was abundantly clear a week or so ago, when the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister about something that he had read in a popular tabloid newspaper, that his claims were grotesquely wrong, and Conservative Members said as much at the time; but Hansard failed to report that. I would caution against allowing Hansard to report all the rubbish that comes from the Opposition Benches.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that there is no rubbish in this place, but let me put the matter into proper perspective. The whole House knows, I think, that Hansard is a report of what goes on in the Chamber. I have said before that, if it reported every hon. Member's words absolutely verbatim, speeches might not be wholly and always understood. Sometimes, therefore, some licence is taken in putting them into correct English, and I am sure that hon. Members always feel when they read Hansard how excellent their speeches are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—probably as a result of that. Sedentary interruptions are not recorded, for reasons that I have already stated.

Criminal Instruction

Mr. John P. Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose restrictions upon the publication of information which may facilitate or encourage the commission of certain offences; to make further provision about the sale of items which may assist the commission of certain offences; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is threefold. It would impose restrictions upon the publication or broadcasting of material that provides clear and detailed information and instruction on how to commit criminal offences. It is designed to introduce restrictions on material that is published or broadcast that encourages the commission of criminal offences. Finally, it is designed to place restrictions upon the sale of items that are used solely or mainly to assist in carrying out criminal acts.
I believe that all hon. Members are greatly concerned—as, indeed, is the whole country—about the widespread increase in crime. Many of us, in all parts of the House, complain about it, but rarely are common-sense, practical proposals made to try to do something about it.
It is crazy that television programmes in particular can broadcast information that can be used directly by criminals, or potential criminals, to assist them in carrying out their dirty deeds. This affects all sorts of programmes. They can be entertainment programmes, the familiar detective serials, news programmes and, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, even programmes whose express purpose is to do the opposite. I refer to programmes that are designed to detect and deter crime, such as "Crimewatch" and "Crimestoppers". Sadly, I have it on good authority that these programmes have become compulsive viewing for criminals. They often provide the most up-to-date techniques on how to carry out offences. I choose, as random examples, breaking into cars, overriding steering locks, crossing wires, breaking into premises, carrying out credit frauds, and so on.
We do not propose for one minute that programmes such as these should be banned. They do a good job. However, people should realise that information may be implanted that could be useful to criminals. If restrictions were imposed upon the publication of that information, no restriction would necessarily be placed on artistic freedom, the dramatic effect of programmes or their accuracy. We need these programmes; they should continue.
In addition, certain programmes appear to encourage people, especially young people, to commit criminal acts. A body of academic evidence is being developed, in particular the work of Professor Bandura, that suggests that children are influenced and impressed by programmes that glorify the criminal and make him out to be an attractive figure. Imitation of criminals is common among young people and may explain why the commission of serious crimes is rising so fast among them.
Last year, a number of my constituents, including concerned parents, and the police contacted me about the content of the well-known children's programme "Grange

Hill". It was alleged that that programme showed youngsters breaking into cars and joyriding in them. They were presented almost as hero figures among their peers. One mum contacted me and said, "Mr. Smith, what on earth are you going to do? I am trying my best to guide my children and exercise parental responsibility, but when they turn on television at the peak viewing time for children, they see all that going on."
We should not have to legislate. Responsible programme makers and other people with responsibility for what is broadcast should provide their own code of practice and code of conduct. I stress that there is no evidence that what is being done is intentional, but it is damaging and the House has a duty to the country to try to prevent it.
Finally, it is worrying and disturbing that it is now possible—in fact, it is a widespread practice—to purchase items which are widely advertised in the papers and whose sole or main purpose is to commit a criminal act. One can buy a car lock gun, which is widely advertised and which crooks use to break into cars. I would not mind betting that many hon. Members have had their cars broken into a number of times in the past year or so. We are assisting criminals to do so. It is ludicrous that one can buy such a thing.
One can also buy specialist radio equipment which scans the short waves to pick up police communications, and evidence suggests that it is a common practice among criminals to divert the police on duty. The criminals listen to the radio and commit a criminal act elsewhere, untouched and undetected. The House cannot accept such a situation.
Another ludicrous example is that one can easily buy a gadget to fit on a car which will pick up a radar speed check in advance of the car arriving at that check. There is only one purpose for that, which is to break the law. It is wrong that people should be allowed to buy such items, which are generally available, in order to break the law.
Those are three practical proposals. They are backed by a body of empirical evidence now being produced but, far more importantly, ordinary common sense tells us that the honest, decent, law-abiding citizens who are, sadly, the victims of crime which is undermining the quality of our lives know that it is happening. They think it is ridiculous and that something should be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John P. Smith, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and Mr. Ray Powell.

CRIMINAL INSTRUCTION

Mr. John P. Smith accordingly presented a Bill to impose restrictions upon the publication of information which may facilitate or encourage the commission of certain offences; to make further provision about the sale of items which may assist the commission of certain offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 6

SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a body corporate to be known as 'the Scottish Further Education Funding Council' (referred to in this Part of this Act as the 'Funding Council').

(2) An order establishing the Funding Council shall prescribe such of the functions of the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act, not being functions mentioned in subsection (3) below, as may be exercised on his behalf by the Funding Council.

(3) The functions referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) any power of the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act—

(i) to make orders or regulations; or
(ii) to give directions;

(b) the giving of consent by the Secretary of State, other than the giving of consent under section 8(7) or 14 of this Act;
(c) the carrying out of consultation by the Secretary of State under any of sections 3(4), 5(1), 6(2), 8(9), 15(4) and 16(2) of this Act;
(d) the making of a determination by the Secretary of State under section 8(5) of this Act;
(e) the appointment by the Secretary of State of members of the college council in pursuance of Schedule 5 to this Act;
(f) the power of the Secretary of State under section 8(6) of and paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 to this Act to require reports and returns to be made and information to be given; and
(g) the giving of notice by the Secretary of State under section 18(2) of this Act.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the functions there specified include such functions as applied or modified in pursuance of an order made under this Part of this Act.

(5) The Funding Council shall, notwithstanding that they are exercising functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, be entitled to enforce any rights acquired, and shall be liable in respect of any liabilities incurred (including liability in damages for wrongful or negligent acts or omissions), in the exercise of those functions in all respects as if the Funding Council were acting as a principal; and all proceedings for enforcement of such rights and liabilities shall be brought by or against the Funding Council in their own name.

(6) Schedule [The Scottish Further Education Funding Council] to this Act shall have effect as regards the constitution and supplementary powers of and other matters relating to the Funding Council.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a) to the new clause, at beginning insert
'with effect from 1st April 1994'.

Government new clause 7—Advisory functions of the Funding Council.

Government new clause 8—Power of Secretary of State as regards functions of the Funding Council.

Government new clause 20—Payment of grants, etc. to Funding Council (No. 2).

New clause 5—Funding Council timetable—
'—.The Secretary of State shall publish a timetable by which a Funding Council for Further Education shall be established in Scotland to undertake the functions conferred on the Secretary of State in this part which relate to the provision of further education.'

New clause 19—Scottish Further Education Funding Council—

'There shall be established, with effect from 1 April 1993 or any such date thereafter that the Secretary of State may deem appropriate, a body corporate to be known as the Further Education Funding Council for Scotland, which shall

(a) assume those duties in respect of further education which are conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State; and
(b) consist of an appropriate number of members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State having regard to the desirability of including persons who have experience or capability in the provision of education, including experience as a member of a local education authority, or in industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.'

Government amendments Nos. 84, 14 and 15.

Mr. Forsyth: I said during the consideration of the Bill in Committee that I would table amendments on Report to keep the option open to establish a funding council for further education. While I remain of the view that it would be a mistake to establish such a council, especially at 1 April 1993, I have tabled new clause 6, which would give the Secretary of State by order the power to establish a Scottish further education funding council.
The amendments tabled by the Opposition seek a commitment that a council will be set up at 1 April 1994 or that a firm timetable be established for that. Nineteen ninety-four, however, is likely to be too soon after colleges become self-governing for any Secretary of State to consider the case for establishing such a funding council.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) acknowledged in Committee the need for stability in further education. The duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of further education in Scotland would remain with the Secretary of State, the council being responsible for the actual exercise of the Secretary of State's functions as prescribed by order. That is the best way of ensuring accountability to Parliament. Those functions that cannot be presented and so exercised on his behalf are listed in the new clauses.
Those exemptions involve functions such as the making of orders and regulations, and the giving of directions. They are necessary to protect the Secretary of State because he would be liable for breach of his statutory duties, and it is he who will be accountable to Parliament.
New clause 7 would require the funding council—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has been rather helpful on issues involving disabilities and learning difficulties. He will be aware that there are parallel debates on the equivalent English Bill. I am not making a debating point; I am genuinely trying to clarify the issue. Will the Minister explain why new clause 6 does not deal with the responsibility for people with disabilities and learning difficulties?

Mr. Forsyth: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in such matters, and when we reach new clauses 11 and 18, perhaps he will want to raise them. There will be an opportunity to discuss those helpful debates and the results of the deliberations about people with special needs. New clause 6 fulfils not my undertakings on people with learning difficulties and special needs but my undertaking to give the Secretary of State powers to establish a buffer body—a funding council to carry out on his behalf the functions which were set out in the Bill as it originally came before the House.
New clause 7 would require the funding council to advise and assist the Secretary of State in connection with his functions and to provide him with
such information and advice as he may … require".
The funding council would also be able to give the Secretary of State
such information and advice as they think fit as regards the provision of further education … in Scotland.
New clause 20 is a funding clause, containing provisions similar to the Secretary of State's power to fund boards of management in clause 4.
Amendment No. 84 sets out provisions in a schedule dealing with such matters as the appointment of members of the council by the Secretary of State, their powers to employ staff and own property, and to prepare reports and accounts. Those provisions mirror similar provisions for the higher education funding council in schedule 6.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the significant concession that the amendments represent. They have been introduced because of our wish to ensure that an important option is not closed to further education students and staff. It is in their best interests that the reforms have been brought forward.
I invite the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie to withdraw amendment (a) to new clause 6, which in effect would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising his power to establish by order an FE funding council until 1 April or later. That would limit a future Secretary of State's power to establish such a council earlier, if he so wished, and would therefore be unnecessarily restrictive.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I have mixed feelings at the start of the day's business. First, we have been asked to return to the Bill very quickly. It came out of Committee only last Tuesday. That shows the Government's desire to try to get it through before a general election, but it means that we cannot subject some of the extensive proposals that the Government are making today to the sort of scrutiny that we would wish. That will have to happen in the other place.
On the other hand, I want to express my great appreciation and thanks to the Minister—I say this quite fearlessly—for honouring the commitments that were made in Committee, for which Opposition Members are most grateful. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that significant improvements have been made and that the Committee stage was characterised by none of the sterility that is common on such occasions. I also express my appreciation to the Scottish Office civil servants, who must have worked extremely hard to produce the amendments.
It is appropriate to put this debate into the context of the Bill as a whole. We welcome the intentions behind the second half of the Bill—the end of the binary divide and the transfer of control to Scotland. We are pleased with the

concessions made in respect of the further education provisions of the Bill, both before it was introduced and during its passage. In the original White Paper, a clear warning was given that the privatisation of the careers service was contemplated, but, before the Bill was introduced, a concession was made and that proposal was withdrawn.
We welcome, too, the fact that the Government soon realised that it would be quite impractical to ask the local authorities to perform only a social and recreational function under the Bill, with the result that there is now a duty on the colleges to provide further education, and a power for local authorities to do so.
We welcome the fact that, throughout the Bill, there is movement towards much greater consultation with local authorities, staff and other bodies. That is a significant step.
We thank the Minister for altering the provisions governing the responsibility for English as a foreign language, and for making it quite clear that that is a college responsibility. I am sure that all members of the Committee—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—will want to express their appreciation for the movement that has been made on those with learning needs.
In particular, we welcome the provision for the establishment of a further education funding council, although we must put that matter in context. Even with the funding council, we regard the dual provision of further education by local authorities and colleges as nonsense. It will simply be extremely confusing. Incoherence is bound to result when the Howie committee's proposals—or the responses to them—about highers and other courses in the upper stages of secondary schools appear.
No further education funding council—or any other body—will be able to implement such proposals in a sensible way, given that, on the one hand, we shall have centrally controlled FE colleges under the control of local business men, while, on the other, we shall have the extensive proposals for post-16s, which I am sure will have their impact on vocational education and which will have to be administered by the local authorities.
We remain convinced that the Bill is motivated by the desire for central control. We must not forget that it had its origins in the Government's desire to keep down the poll tax rather than in any educational consideration, and we object to self-selected boards of business men running further education in an area. We are also apprehensive about the service that will be given to remote areas, at some distance from further education colleges.
We cannot agree with the further education provisions in the Bill. As I pointed out in Committee, the further education funding council was a third or fourth best. We have no commitment to implementing that part of the Bill; a Labour Government would regard the centralisation of control as wrong.

Mr. Bill Walker: When the hon. Gentleman referred to areas that are some distance from colleges of further education, was he talking about the rural areas of Scotland? If so, will he elaborate on that? I should be interested to know his thinking on the rural areas, what he proposes to do and where he will find the money.

4 pm

Mr. Worthington: I am referring in some cases, but not necessarily, to rural areas. We are talking about more than 40 colleges, and it is certainly not true to say that every town in Scotland has a college of further education. No one would call Dumbarton, for example, rural, but it does not have a further education college of its own. Many other areas are in the same position.
However, I am talking about remote areas. Clydebank college has out-stations in many parts of Argyll, and is currently seeking to set up a multi-site further education college in the rural parts of Argyll. That can be achieved only by intense collaboration with the local authorities and schools in the area, because their premises will be involved. As I said in Committee, we shall run up against the business bureaucracy of people charging for services.
We would not implement the FE part of the Bill. We recognise that there are deficiencies in the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 and that we need to consult the FE sector if we are to improve that. However, although the Bill has been improved, we cannot make it acceptable to an incoming Labour Government.
As I have said, as we have only just received the detailed new clauses on the FE funding council, we have not had the time to scrutinise them and, because there has been insufficient time, it has not been physically possible to table amendments to those provisions. That will have to be deferred until the Bill is considered in the other place. I hope that their Lordships can cope with that, because the scale of the change is considerable. On first impression, one is concerned that powers have not been—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Given that the hon. Gentleman argued in Committee that an amendment should be tabled to allow the Secretary of State the power to set up such a funding council, and that I argued against it on the basis that to do so would involve a complicated and lengthy series of amendments, is it not a little disingenuous of him now to argue that it is unfair on the House and him that such amendments have now been tabled? [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman appears to be complaining. We have tabled an amendment that does precisely what the hon. Gentleman sought in Committee. I understood that, if the Bill were to he amended in that way, the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, so I am now a little disappointed that he appears to be girning about it.

Mr. Worthington: No, I have expressed my appreciation. The Minister has done the right thing, and has produced proposals for a further education funding council. I was simply pointing out that, although we shall not oppose those provisions today, that must not be taken as evidence that we approve of everything in the new clauses. The establishment of a higher education funding council accounted for half the Bill, and we spent five weeks scrutinising it. We recognise that further work needs to be done in the other place to scrutinise the FE funding council.
I should like to give one example of a power that seems conclusive and all-embracing. On first reading—we can give it only a first reading—new clause 20(2) appears to refer to a pretty gargantuan power:
A grant or other payment paid under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate and such conditions—(a) may be imposed before, after or at the time such grant or payment is made".

That is an extraordinary proviso. In other words, the conditions under which the funding council gets a grant can be changed after it has received the grant. The new clause continues by saying that such conditions
may relate to any time, whether before or after such time.
There may be a simple explanation. I am simply telling the Minister that we are pleased that he has introduced proposals for a further education funding council, but that a great deal of the detail will have to be scrutinised in the other place. When the Minister replies, perhaps he could say what that provision means.

Mr. Forsyth: In introducing the new clauses, I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to the provisions in clause 4. If he looks at clause 4 he will find exactly the same wording. There is nothing new in this. We discussed the matter in Committee. If he is arguing that this is new and has been sprung upon him, I must tell him that it has been in the Bill from the beginning.

Mr. Worthington: We are talking about a condition that the Secretary of State can impose on a funding council. How can this be exactly the same when previously there was no funding council? There is a change of circumstances.

Mr. Forsyth: This relates to the payment of funds to institutions. The wording in clause 4 is the same. Clause 4(3) states:
The terms and conditions on which the Secretary of State may make any grants, loans or other payments under this section may include in particular conditions—
(a) enabling him to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by him if any other condition subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with",
and so on. Those provisions applied when the Secretary of State was funding directly. It follows that they must be carried over if a buffer body acts on his behalf. There is nothing new in this. The hon. Gentleman is making a meal of a concession that he requested.

Mr. Worthington: There is a difference between a funding council and a college board of management. A funding council has complete responsibility for the distribution of funding to further education colleges whereas, if I have read the provision correctly—the Minister has not corrected me—the Secretary of State may make a grant to a funding council and change the conditions of that grant at some stage in the future—in other words, after the grant has been made.
We tabled the amendment for a funding council in 1994 because we believed that the Minister accepted the case for a funding council in Committee. The only argument that he advanced against a funding council—he may have others—was that it would be too hurried at present and create confusion. Given the time of year, the fact that no steps have been taken to set up a funding council and the fact that we cannot be as far ahead as I hope we are on the higher education funding council, I fully accept that it would be wrong, disorganising and disorienting for us to set up a funding council in 1993.
We want an assurance from the Minister that he has accepted the case for a funding council and that, having got out of the problem of the rush—the Government have introduced the legislation in that way—he intends at some future date, were his party to remain in office, to introduce one. We want an assurance that this is not simply a sop. Is this a sop, or is it a sign that the Minister has accepted the


case for a funding council? The reason for the amendment is to test the Minister and to put a date on the establishment of the funding council, thus demonstrating the Government's commitment.

Mr. Nicol Stephen (Kincardine and Deeside): I echo the words of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and welcome the new clause that has been tabled by the Minister. A lot of detailed work has been done in a short time on the various new clauses and amendments. I welcome the fact that the new clause offers an opportunity for a funding council for further education in Scotland to be established.
We are still uncertain, however, whether the Scottish Office and the Minister intend, in the fulness of time, to proceed with the further education funding council. In Committee, the Minister hesitated about tabling such a new clause, because it might create uncertainty. Obviously, he weighed up in his mind whether the inclusion of such a new clause would be healthy in terms of the unsettling effect it might have on the institutions affected.
I urge the Minister to say not only that the Government may set up, at some unspecified date, the funding council, but that he is committed to doing so. Such a commitment would do a great deal to ease the disruption that will obviously be caused in the transition phase, as institutions move from local authority control to control by the Secretary of State. Many changes will have to be made, and they could be made far more effectively and with less disruption if we knew that a further education funding council was to be established.
I am still unclear as to why the Minister left out the option for a funding council in the first draft of the Bill. A higher education funding council is allowed for in the English and Welsh Bill and is also allowed for in this Bill. I am never one to suggest that we should simply follow what is done in England and Wales, but the proposed funding council for further education was one of the better aspects of the English and Welsh Bill.
I still do not understand the resistance that may exist in the Scottish Office to the establishment of such a council in Scotland. I can only conclude that there is still a desire among Scottish Office Ministers to give emphasis to one of the worst aspects of the Scottish Bill—centralisation. Further and higher education institutions are worried that the Bill will allow significant controls to be exercised directly through the Secretary of State, whether they are political or not. They believe that the interference suggested by the Bill and its centralising aspects should be firmly resisted.
If the Minister is unwilling to commit himself to the establishment of a further education funding council, it will be a signal that the idea of a buffer to distance the Secretary of State from his responsibilities towards further and higher education will be lost. There should be such a buffer, so that people who are engaged in further education and who have the expertise to give proper advice to the Secretary of State have the opportunity to exercise their powers. However, it appears that powers will continue to rest squarely with the Secretary of State, his advisers and civil servants. Great concern will be felt by those in higher and further education if their fear is not overcome as a result of today's debate. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to remove that fear.
We should give a clear signal to everyone involved in further education in Scotland that the Government intend to move towards the establishment of a further education funding council. I am not calling for that commitment to be met on a specific date—it could happen in 1992, 1993 or 1994. However, in due course, the Government should publish a timetable showing that they are moving towards that goal. That signal would provide stability and reassurance to those involved in further education in Scotland. They would then believe that there will be a buffer between them and the direct control to be exercised by the Secretary of State.
The Liberal Democrat party and I are still very much opposed to the principle of centralisation. I see the Bill as nothing but a centralising measure. The Minister argued the opposite case in Committee, but I still see the ultimate responsibility being shifted from local authorities to the Secretary of State. It is another attack on local government. The educational rationale for such a move was never made in advance of the Bill, which leads to deep suspicion among hon. Members that it was proposed to solve the Government's poll tax problems rather than for sound educational reasons. The people of Scotland take it ill if they see their education system being meddled with for non-education reasons.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In candour, had it been left to me I would have talked and talked and exhausted the patience of the Government and doubtless of my hon. Friends. I like neither part of the Bill, and I do not think that responsibility for further education should be removed from local authorities, which have, on the whole, managed it well. As I made known to the Committee, I still have reservations about the separation of funding councils.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know what parliamentary life is like and my hon. Friends take a different view.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is no disagreement among Opposition Members about the fact that we would not like further education to be taken away from local authorities. We are all at one on that. My hon. Friend and I may, however, be alone in being unenthusiastic about university separation, but that is another matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
Having made that preamble, my hon. Friends will be relieved to know that my contributions to Report stage will be solely in queston form. It is best to be candid also about who one has consulted. My first question is a result of a telephone conversation with Graham Bowie, chief executive of Lothian region. What safeguards will exist for the independence of a funding council? We shall need athletic Parliamentary Private Secretaries to obtain the answers to all my questions.
My second question follows consultation with a number of people. What professional support, and from whom, will the permanent secretariat and permanent advisers have? Thirdly, how does all that lie with new clause 10 and the submissions to the Scottish Office? Is the funding council to be the creature—it is an unpleasant word, but it is not meant unpleasantly—of the Scottish Office?


My fourth question concerns an extremely important matter—the practical nature of the tendering requirements, for instance, for computer facilities, estate surveying, legal and architectural services, medical advice and supplies. At present, the further education authorities take as much advantage as possible of the economies of scale through the regional councils. As the Minister raises his eyebrow, I recommend my excellent speech on competitive tendering of 20 January in the House. One example is the Minister's letter of 30 January to me about de minimis exemptions. The Secretary of State smiles, but those are practical matters involving extremely important people within the local authorities.

Mr. Brian Wilson: To be fair to the Minister, he was smiling in response to my question about whose constituency included Renfrew.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend; I always like to be fair to Ministers.
The letter stated:
The present de minimis figure of £100,000 reflects our judgment as to the point at which it would not be right to oblige an authority to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements of competitive tendering.
That aspect has to be considered carefully.
My fifth question arises from a conversation that I had yesterday with Tony Godden, the head of the West Lothian college, who has severe reservations about the time scale leading to incorporation and how colleges like his—Bathgate and Livingston—can undertake the services previously carried out by the regional council. At this early stage, will the Minister say how, in practical terms, the changeover is to take place? I hope that the issue will be explained in the other place.
My sixth question arises out of a conversation with Dr. John Watts, the rector of St. Kentigerns, Blackburn. He said that on that day he had 70 pupils at the West Lothian college and Oatridge agricultural college, and the links between the colleges were excellent. But he thought that the links were bound to become more tenuous when the institutions were paid for from different purses and had different bureaucratic structures.
The House will be relieved to hear that I am coming to the end of my list of telephone calls. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next it will be letters."] It is telephone calls on Report and letters in Committee.
My last telephone call was to the head of Oatridge agricultural college, which has been a great help to the agricultural community in Scotland. Chris Nixon said that co-operation could exist, but it would be difficult when co-operation through the normal virement funds ceased. Members who have been on the Public Accounts Committee, as I have, will know all about virement, which is not a recondite issue but a practical one.
Representatives at Oatridge believe that under the proposed set-up the college would have to buy services. At present, the region acts as a clearing house and Lothian region gives the college a great deal of autonomy. But once the new proposals are implemented, school work will be funded and we will face either the impossible position of teachers being paid for doing nothing or the arrangements. will cease to exist. Chris Nixon said that he could not envisage the school buying college time unless the college could buy school time. Theoretically, doubtless the colleges can buy school time, but in practice, as all my colleagues know, it is impractical to do so.
I am sorry, I forgot that I made one more telephone call—to Mr. Sellars, the Lothian region's further education expert. He expressed anxiety about the public accountability of the funding council, and in particular who was to look after the strategic planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is chairman of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There is a view that COSLA should carry out the service. If it is to be implemented by the Scottish Office, we should be told about it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Before my hon. Friend concludes what some people might describe as the Linlithgow questions, may I point out that there are indeed many in COSLA who would still argue, even at this late stage in our discussions on the Bill—very rushed discussions indeed—that if the Government are determined to take the colleges out of local government, there is still an important role for COSLA. My hon. Friend was right to identify it.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to know how the Government see that role for COSLA. I should also like to know what I am to say to Oatridge, St. Kentigerns and other people who are involved at a practical level.

Mr. John McAllion: The Minister asked my hon. Friend to withdraw amendment (a) to new clause 6 which commits the Government to setting up a funding council for Scottish further education. If the new clause goes through without amendment (a), it will empower the Secretary of State to set up such a council. He may do so, but he may decide not to do so. If amendment (a) is not carried, the Minister cannot say that he has brought forward the new clause as a concession to the Opposition. He is dressing it up as a concession, hut, without amendment (a), if there is a Conservative Government post election—I do not think that will happen, but we should explore the fantasies in case there is—the Secretary of State could decide not to set up a further education council in Scotland. He could say that he had the power but no obligation to do so.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not have the pleasure of joining us in Committee. The request which was made to me in Committee was to bring forward amendments to enable the Secretary of State to set up a funding council, on the clear understanding that no commitment was being given that we would wish to do such a thing. When I said in Committee that we had no intention of establishing a funding council in April 1993, I was asked to provide power to enable a future Secretary of State to do so. That is what I have done. I have fulfilled the undertaking to the letter.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister confirms what we are saying, that there is no commitment on behalf of the Secretary of State to set up a funding council.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister is being slightly disingenuous. What we pressed him to do in Committee was to include in the Bill power to set up a funding council. He said that he was against that. We then asked him, if he could not go so far as to meet us in full, to introduce an empowering provision. He has met that part of the commitment, but our main concern was to have the


legislation drafted in such a way as to ensure that a funding council would be set up. Therefore, the Minister has not been as generous as he pretends.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister is never as generous as he pretends. He seeks consistently to mislead the people of Scotland about the reality of what he and his Government have been about in Scotland in the past 12 to 13 years.
Since the Minister is anxious to avoid giving a commitment to set up a further education council, perhaps he could use the opportunity of replying to the debate to rule out a possibility which was raised in the press last year. In May The Times Higher Education Supplement, in an article entitled
Merging the High and Low Roads",
suggested that further education funding in Scotland could in future be incorporated in the proposed Scottish higher education funding council. If that is not the case, perhaps the Minister will say that it is not the intention of the Government to go down that high road or low road, whatever they wish to call it, and merge further education and higher education in one funding council after the general election. By giving the Secretary of State the power this side of the general election, perhaps he intends to implement such a council after the election.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of questions. I hope that I can provide him with the answers in a way that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench were unable to provide answers to questions raised when he was the hon. Member for West Lothian.
The hon. Gentleman's telephone calls raise a number of important questions, the first of which concerns the independence of the funding council. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we have not given a commitment to establish a funding council: we simply gave a commitment to provide powers for the Secretary of State to do so. Any such council would need to be established and have its functions defined by an order approved by this House. And if there were a proposal to establish a funding council, that would best be done in the context of the further education colleges having acquired self-governing status, having found their feet and having had an opportunity to discuss the respective roles of the funding council and of the Secretary of State.
4.30 pm
The new clauses are designed to set out the structure for a funding council skeleton on which such structures would be built. That is a matter for future debate, certainly not for today when there is quite enough to be done in preparing colleges for self-governing status and ensuring that they have the support and expertise required to enable them to make a success of that. That support is available in the Scottish Office and has been tried and tested in the work that has been done supporting the central institutions. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is only too well aware of how successful the central institutions have been in working with the expertise in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister is being unusually diffident. In Committee he conceded that there was a case for a funding council "as a buffer". Right from the start,

his counterparts in England and Wales have seen the necessity for a funding council. We accept that the Minister has honoured his commitment: he has brought forward powers to establish a funding council. We are just asking for knowledge of the Minister's attitude to a funding council. Does he think it would be a good thing; is he committed to setting one up?

Mr. Forsyth: We discussed all this in Committee when I set out our position clearly. In the fifth sitting of the Committee on 19 December I had the following to say:
It would not be helpful to establish such a council on 1 April 1993 when the colleges become self-governing and will require a period of stability. I told the committee that when the colleges were firmly established under a central funding mechanism, I saw no reason why a funding council should not be considered. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said in Committee that if the Minister is persuaded that it may be possible to establish a funding council at a future date, why does not the Bill allow the Secretary of State to establish one, given that it would require primary legislation. Since then, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has made a persuasive case for including such provisions in the Bill.
I have taken advice about what would be involved in amending the Bill to allow for such a further education council to be established at a later date by a future Secretary of State if he so wished. It will require extensive amendment to the Bill, but given the Committee's progress in considering part I, and given the positive way in which Opposition Members have put their case, I am happy to undertake to table amendments on Report to keep the option open to establish a funding council for further education."—[Official Report, First Scottish, Standing Committee, 19 December 1991; c. 156-57.]
That is what I have done. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) welcomed it. To suggest now that we should commit ourselves to establishing a funding council to carry out certain functions is to change the position that the hon. Gentleman adopted in Committee and my understanding of the Opposition's view—

Mr. Tom Clarke: I share the premise of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the timing is academic. I do not expect the Minister to be helpful—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Or even to be here.

Mr. Clarke: I am trying to be as kind as possible to the Minister. Even if the order to which the Minister referred a few minutes ago is introduced, what can the Minister tell us about the Government's thinking on what the timetable will be?

Mr. Forsyth: I did so in Committee. I make the observation that given the Opposition's effort to determine the Government's view two or three years from now, I can only conclude that Opposition Members expect us to be in government after the next general election. If the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) had any confidence that he would be in government, he would know that the Bill would provide him with the power to decide when to establish the council. The Opposition's approach is revealing, although entirely understandable with the way the polls are going.
I said in Committee that I had an open mind on the matter. If we thought that a funding council would be entirely inappropriate, we would never have agreed to


include such provisions in the Bill. It is a matter best addressed at a future date in the light of the experience of the self-governing colleges.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me about the independence of the funding council. The council's functions would be established by order. Obviously, the council would exist to carry out functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, but the duty would remain with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the funding council would be the creature of the Scottish Office and he asked where public accountability would be. Accountability will remain in this place because the Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the exercise of his duties in the provision of further education. The funding council will have particular functions which will be carried out on his behalf. The new clauses are carefully drafted to ensure that the clear lines of accountability are maintained.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also asked me about competitive tendering and the tendering process. I am delighted that he sees the benefits of competitive tendering and that he is anxious to ensure that further education colleges should get the best value for money. If colleges want to make arrangements with local authorities about purchasing or about other centrally organised purchasing arrangements, they are free to do so. It is a matter for their boards of management and we should expect them, like all bodies that are publicly funded, to get value for money.

Mr. Dalyell: I bring to the Minister's attention the correspondence between West Lothian district council and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the Under-Secretary of State, on precisely the difficulties that a council, whether district or regional, has on the whole issue of competitive tendering. This is not the occasion on which to go into detail, but I think that the Minister should be aware of the problem.

Mr. Forsyth: I should be happy to look into that correspondence and to consider the hon. Gentleman's point. The general point is that the colleges would be free to make whatever arrangements seemed best for the provision of services. Centrally organised arrangements are sometimes not appropriate and that point brings me to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen).
The hon. Gentleman argued that the Bill was a centralising measure. For a Liberal Democrat to argue that giving institutions the power to run their own affairs is a centralising measure is extraordinary. It was even more extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the measure had something to do with the poll tax. I explained in Committee that the poll tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax!"] I have called the community charge the "poll tax" on a number of occasions. We used the term "poll tax" in the famous vulture posters which we have put behind us.
The community charge or poll tax has nothing to do with the arrangements for financing local government. It is clear that the money that will now be provided centrally by my right hon. Friend will not be given to the local authorities. This is a transfer from one account to another. The idea that it would somehow reduce the community charge is erroneous. We have explained the point at great length to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, but he keeps making his claim. I do not know whether he

does not understand the measure or whether he thinks that he can discredit the idea by associating it with the poll tax. I have no idea how his mind operates in those matters.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the measure was an attack on Scottish education. The one point that he left out of his speech was the recognition that the measures have been welcomed by the principals of the colleges concerned. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that he knows better than the people who are responsible for running the colleges who have welcomed the opportunity to be able to take decisions at local level?
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) criticised me for not giving a clear commitment to setting up a funding council. I have covered that ground in some depth. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to join us in Committee because I have enjoyed his contributions in previous Committees of which he has been a member. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have helped us—

Mr. McAllion: Unlike the Minister, I am not sorry that I was not on the Committee; I am pleased that I missed it. The Minister must have been asleep or doing something else when I raised my final point about the article in the education press in Scotland about the middle of last year. It suggested that the Government intended to merge further education funding with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. Does the Minister discount that possibility?

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to discount that possibility, together with many other stories which appear in the education press and which are represented as the Government's view. It is regrettable that that happens. The view mentioned by the hon. Gentleman has never been put to me and I did not see the article to which he referred. He can rest easy on that matter.
I hope that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will feel able to withdraw his amendment and accept that the Government have fulfilled the undertaking that was freely given as a result of our deliberations on this matter.

Mr. Worthington: I cannot withdraw the amendment, which would set a date for the introduction of a further education funding council. The last exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and the Minister was interesting. An acceptable reason for not introducing an FE funding council—although I do not say that the reason would be either accurate or right—would be if the Government intended to merge it with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. I believe that the Secretary of State was credited with saying that the Government would consider merging the two at some stage. The Minister shakes his head, which shows that that is not in the Government's mind. However, had that been a reason, I could have accepted it.
The possibility of such a merger has now been discounted by the Minister, who has given a solid commitment that no Government of his persuasion would attempt such a merger. What is the Minister's difficulty? Is he or is he not in favour of a further education funding council? It is not a difficult issue. Both the Welsh and the English Ministers have managed to make up their minds on it. We can only reach the conclusion—which will be noted by the further education sector in Scotland—that the reason behind the Government's proposal for a further


education funding council is that it might help the Bill's passage. It is quite clear that the Government are not committed to introducing such a council.
There has been no intellectual acceptance of the case for an FE funding council. At the very most, it is an open issue, but, knowing the Minister as I do, I concur with what the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) said about the Bill being fundamentally a centralising measure. It seeks to keep control with the Secretary of State. Administration will be done by self-appointed business men on boards of management, but the parameters of further education—the fee level, the overall funding and the policy—will be set by central Government.
The Minister did not accept our argument that there is great virtue in having a forum, a central organisation, where the further education world could concentrate its arguments, debate policy and move forward. If the Government are returned to power, because of the inadequacies of this place there will be no scope for public debate on further education.
4.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised some extremely interesting issues which we do not have time to debate today but which I hope will be debated in the other place, such as the relationship between the putative funding council and the Scottish Office. At first glance, it would appear to be very much the creature of the Scottish Office, when in fact it should be a buffer acting at arm's length from the Scottish Office.
Another inadequacy about the way that we have to deal with the matter today is that there is not time to debate the issue, which we debated in Committee, about the role of a funding council in strategy and planning. It has a strategic planning function. That debate will have to take place in another place. The issue of academic freedom has been raised both in this place and in the other place—the notorious clauses 36 and 64, which have similar elements in the further education sector, cannot be debated today.
Anyone listening to or reading about the debate will know that the nub of the Government's thinking is that they want the Bill to be passed. Their proposal for a further education funding council does not really have any commitment. Nothing that the Minister has said today convinces me that his heart and his mind have been won over to the case for a funding council. All the Government are doing is providing the power to establish one. People will note that fact with interest. I hope that hon. Members will support our amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken. He needs the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Mr. Dalyell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish once again to refer to the St. Kentigern-Oatridge problem, which is repeated in all our constituencies in one form or another, and which I recommend to some diligent Peer in the other place. If institutions are funded from the same general purse, on the whole they mesh together and work easily together. When there is a different purse and a different bureaucratic

structure, it is much less easy to have the sort of fruitful relationship that exists between, for example, St. Kentigern's school at Blackburn and the Oatridge agricultural college.
A general problem that might be explored in the other place is how, if there is to be such a separation, we can ensure that fruitful, easy relationships continue to exist. I leave that matter to the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to be clear that the House realises what we are doing. I have put the Question on new clause 6. I understand that later the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) wants to press his amendment (a) to a vote.

Question agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the proposed clause, at beginning insert

["with effect from 1st April l994"—[Mr. Worthington.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 254.

Division No. 69]
[4.47 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eadie, Alexander


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Edwards, Huw


Ashton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carr, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cartwright, John
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Crowther, Stan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'L)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dobson, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Douglas, Dick
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Lamond, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leighton, Ron






Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Sillars, Jim


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stephen, Nicol


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Hara, Edward
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Quin, Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Allen McKay and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Eric Illsley.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Franks, Cecil
Mates, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moate, Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Irving, Sir Charles
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rost, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Thorne, Neil






Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Yeo, Tim


Walters, Sir Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Tim Wood and


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New clause 7

ADVISORY FUNCTIONS OF THE FUNDING COUNCIL

'.—(1) Without prejudice to section [The Scottish Further Education Funding Council]of this Act, the Funding Council shall provide to the Secretary of State advice and assistance in connection with such of his functions under this Part of this Act as he may, from time to time, determine.
(2) The Funding Council shall provide to the Secretary of State such information and advice as he may, from time to time, require as regards the provision of further education (within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the 1980 Act) in Scotland.
(3) The Funding Council may provide to the Secretary of State such information and advice as they think fit as regards the provision of further education (within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the 1980 Act) in Scotland.
(4) Advice, assistance or information provided by the Funding Council in pursuance of this section shall be provided in such manner as the Secretary of State may, from time to time, determine.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE AS REGARDS FUNCTIONS OF THE FUNDING COUNCIL

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may give the Funding Council directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of their functions, other than their functions under section[Advisory functions of the Funding Council] of this Act; and it shall be the duty of the Funding Council to comply with such directions.
(2) A direction given under subsection (1) above may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction so given.
(3) Nothing in section [Scottish Further Education Funding Council] of this Act or in any order made under that section shall be taken to prohibit the exercise by the Secretary of State of any function conferred on him by this Part of this Act whether or not such function has been or has purported to have been exercised by the Funding Council in pursuance of that section or any such order.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT PLANS

'.—(1) Every board of management shall, not later than such date in every financial year as the Secretary of State may determine, submit to the Secretary of State a college development plan in respect of their college.
(2) The college development plan shall be prepared in respect of the academic year commencing in the next following financial year and the succeeding two academic years.
(3) The college development plan shall contain a statement of—

(a) the number of persons the board estimates will be students of the college;
(b) the programmes of learning of further education (within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the 1980 Act) which the board proposes to provide or secure the provision of;
(c) the capital expenditure proposed by the board and their estimate of the recurrent expenditure and income of the college; and
(d) such other matters as may be determined by the Secretary of State,
as regards each academic year to which the plan relates.

(4) In preparing their development plan, a board of management—

(a) shall have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State; and
(b) shall consult with the education authority in whose area the college is situated and the local enterprise company for the area in which the college is situated, and in this subsection 'local enterprise company' has the meaning given by paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(5) A development plan prepared in pursuance of this section shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.
(6) Any power of the Secretary of State under this section to make a determination may be exercised differently in respect of different colleges.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 66, in clause 8, page 5, line 3, at end insert
'and to this end the board of management shall be required to provide an annual college development plan, which plan shall be submitted to the education authority and the local enterprise company in whose area the college is situated for consultation.'.

Mr. Forsyth: The new clause fulfills an undertaking that I gave in Committee. I acknowledged the desirability of boards of management continuing to prepare college development plans. We had proposed to deal with that by making it a condition of grant, but to avoid ambiguity I am happy to make it a clear statutory requirement.
The plans will have to be prepared annually and will cover the next three full consecutive academic years. The contents of the plan will have to include such matters as a statement of the number of students expected to be enrolled at the college, the further education programmes that are proposed to be provided or arranged and financial estimates. In preparing the plan the board will have to consult the education authority and the local enterprise


company for the college's area. I acknowledge that they have a legitimate interest. That consultation should prove valuable to the boards in drawing up their plans.
On the basis of the new clause, I invite Opposition Members not to move amendment No. 66, which has a similar effect.

Mr. Worthington: We are delighted that the Minister has moved the new clause and are therefore prepared not to move our amendment.
The proposals arose during our debates in Committee. We constantly referred to the importance of greater openness about what colleges are doing. All that we wanted was the Minister's assurance that the college development plans will be published and that people will have the opportunity to influence them. There should be no secrecy about them. I am glad to have received the Minister's wholehearted and enthusiastic assurance that these will be public documents and that people will be able to influence the operation of boards of management. Therefore, I welcome new clause 10.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of commercial confidentiality, particularly in relation to subsection (4)(b) of new clause 10, do the Government recognise that in certain circumstances there could be a problem over maintaining commercial confidentiality in relation to local enterprise companies? Has that been taken into account?

Mr. Forsyth: There is always a dilemma between carrying out consultation and making as much information as possible public and maintaining commercial confidentiality. The normal rules would apply. Judgment would have to be exercised as to what should be classed as commercially confidential. We cannot, however, deal with that on the face of the Bill. It concerns the good conduct of business, which I am sure that we can trust the local authorities, the local enterprise companies and the boards of management of the colleges concerned to carry out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

DUTY OF BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT AS REGARDS RECORDED CHILDREN

'. A board of management shall, when requested to do so by an education authority in whose area their college is situated, provide to the authority as soon as is reasonably practicable such information or advice as the authority may reasonably request from the board to facilitate the carrying out by the authority of their duty under section 65B of the 1980 Act (provision for recorded children over school age) to consider in relation to any recorded child what provision would benefit him after he ceases to be of school age and to make a report thereon.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 18—Future needs assessment—
'.—(1) Section 65B of the 1980 Act (Future Provision for Recorded Children) shall be amended as follows:—
(2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(4A) If it appears to the education authority that the child may benefit from further education after he ceases to be of school age, the education authority may invite the board of management of a further education college to assist them in performing their duty under subsection (1) above, and the board of management shall co-operate in rendering such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances".
(3) In subsection (6) after the word "resides" there shall be added—
(bi) the board of management of any further education college making provision from which, in their opinion, he might benefit".'—
and Government amendment No. 82.

Mr. Forsyth: New clause 11 and Government amendment No. 82 fulfil an important undertaking that I gave in Committee. The effect of new clause 11 would be to require boards of management to provide information or advice to education authorities, following a request to assist authorities in carrying out their duties under section 65B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Under this section, education authorities must consider, in relation to each recorded child belonging to their area, what provision would benefit that child after he ceases to be of school age. Amendment No. 82 makes clear that boards of management are included in the categories of bodies to which education authorities may send a copy of their report on what provision would benefit a recorded child after he ceases to be of school age.
Further education colleges have an important role in the provision of continuing education for those with learning difficulties. The amendments underline our commitment to those students. I hope that Opposition Members will accept that the amendments have the same effect as new clause 18, which I invite them not to press.

Mr. Dalyell: When I saw the new clause on the Amendment Paper I made inquiries, as is my custom, of two West Lothian headmasters, both of whom made the same point: did the Government realise what expense could be involved in recorded children?
All hon. Members realise that there are children with special needs and would not begrudge money being spent on those who are recorded, but do the Government not understand that they may be involving education authorities and others in fairly considerable expense in relation to recorded children? Do they have any immediately available figures of the average cost of recorded pupils? I understand that in a big school of about 1,000 pupils there are about five recorded children. In some areas the figure may be slightly more. I am told that this is a legitimate question to put to the Government.

Mr. Tom Clarke: New clause 18 was tabled in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, following the discussions in Committee. I welcome new clause 11 and the Minister's comments.
We have to accept that education, including further education, is an important aspect of community care when dealing with young people with disabilities or learning difficulties. I fully understand, since the Minister was kind enough to write to me, that the rules of the House do not allow us to go into too much detail about community care. In his letter to me on 28 January of this year, the Minister said:
I hope you will accept that we have fully explored the possibility of amendments in this area. I recognise the importance of boards of management co-operating and producing information to local authorities carrying out


community care assessments. I propose, therefore, that a circular be issued to boards recommending that they do so. You raised in the debate the desirability of consulting those involved in the community care working group. I am happy to give an undertaking that in drawing up the circular to boards the Scottish Office Education Department will consult with this group.
I welcome that and thought it was important to put it on the record because the spirit of new clause 18 is covered by new clause 11.
My hon. Friends and I are genuinely interested in co-operation in the interests of proper assessment for the individual—the child or the young person—so that we can deal with his further education needs. It is important that this should not be seen merely as an exchange of paper. We all know—and this emerged during our discussions in Committee—that it is very difficult to put a duty to co-operate into legislation, but we hope that the measure will lead to all of the agencies dealing with recorded children working together.
The Minister has accepted the arguments that we made in Committee and has honoured his commitment to table a new clause—in this case, new clause 11. We have made our points and, subject to the important consultations with the Scottish care in the community working group, and, in fairness, having seen a substantial concession to our arguments, we shall not pursue new clause 18.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and welcome the progress that has been made since the Committee stage. Clearly, this is an important clause for people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties.
As my hon. Friend said, further education is an important part of community care. However, it can be more than that—it can be an important part of the development of a disabled person or of someone with learning difficulties in terms not only of the tangible education benefits but of the self-esteem which can develop from such education. Before coming to the House, I worked in the training of people with learning difficulties. Another important benefit which disabled people often get from being in a college environment is that of being integrated with people who do not have learning difficulties or disabilities.
Social work departments and education departments are co-operating to provide the necessary services, but I am not clear how we can ensure continuing co-ordination and co-operation under the new set-up. It is important to define whose duty it is to provide the required services. Some students who are partially sighted or completely visually impaired may feel that they need Braille facilities or special computers. Who will be responsible for providing them—the social work department, the education department, or the college? The same applies to signers for the deaf and to aids and readers for people with dyslexia.
Physical access is also a problem. Mobility can be one of the greatest barriers to education for disabled people. Sometimes they cannot get access to the college or, within the college, to the department or course that they wish to attend. We must clear up the problem of co-ordination and decide on whom the duties and responsibilities fall.
Many disabled people attend college because they are training for work. Others attend for the general educational benefit. It is important that we get it right, because disabled people are three times more likely to be unemployed and, if they are employed, several times more likely to be low-paid and low-skilled. Therefore, we have a duty to ensure that education provision is not only promised but delivered.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his kind remarks. We agree about the importance of providing throughout the education service proper support for people with recorded needs. I also agree with much of what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said.
Uncharacteristically, I must tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that this is not a matter in which expenditure consequences should be the main consideration. We are dealing with a group of people who are entitled to proper provision and a proper safety net at a proper level. Experience suggests that the reforming measures pursued by the Government have greatly expanded the opportunities, although I agree that it is important to recognise the resource consequences.
A good example has been the difficulties experienced in some areas with the provision of, for example, speech therapy services, of which I know the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is aware. I have asked my officials to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to try to deal with some of the resource difficulties. We are making available about £2 million, which will be provided on a contract basis for health boards.
Rather than local authorities simply taking the view that this is an expensive and difficult problem, the issues must be faced and proper provision made. That was the original intention when Parliament passed the legislation to provide for recorded needs. I know that local authorities of whatever political hue do their best to meet the requirements and I believe that the legislation has been of immense benefit.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for his offer to withdraw the new clause, and I hope that the House will support new clause 11.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree with the Minister. There is no argument between us that, in this particular circumstance, expense is not the paramount consideration. That was why I phrased my question rather carefully when I asked whether any facts were easily available about the likely cost of the needs of recorded children. Perhaps I should have known, but, to put it bluntly, I did not.
May I raise another issue following the Minister's answer, which should be dealt with at this stage? The Scottish Community Education Council wanted to table an amendment to clause 2(b) so that it would read:
The duty remaining with education authorities in respect of further education shall include community education which encompasses adult education, youth work, and the educational aspects of community development.
Why does the Bill not place on local authorities an explicit duty to provide community education?
The educational value of youth work in Scotland which forms an integral part of community education is unquestioned, so why does not the Bill explicitly recognise the duty to provide community education? The Minister


may say that that duty is implicit in the Bill, but Esther Roberton and her colleagues at the council—I confess to another telephone call this morning—took a rather different view. I think that they at least deserve an answer.
The athletic Parliamentary Private Secretary has returned—

Mr. Worthington: Arthritic?

Mr. Dalyell: No, not arthritic—athletic. The athletic PPS has returned, so perhaps we may by pigeon post get an answer that will deal with the concerns of the Scottish Community Education Council. The Minister will have had its brief, which is in the form of an amendment, to add in page 2, line 12, the words that I quoted. The Scottish Community Education Council says that that amendment would ensure that the duty remaining with education authorities to provide community education was clear.
Currently, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, education authorities have a duty to secure
adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education".
Under that Act, further education includes voluntary, part-time and full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age, and social, cultural and recreational activities, and physical education and training, either as voluntary organised activities designed to promote the education and development of persons taking part therein, or as part of a course of instruction. It also includes the teaching of Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas.
The Bill broadly confines the duty to be transferred to boards of management of further education colleges, to courses of vocational education and training, and to access to such courses. The duty to provide community education as currently offered remains with education authorities.
Throughout the proceedings—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it difficult to relate what he is saying to the new clauses and amendment under discussion.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I have chanced my arm a bit far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have certainly done my best for the Scottish Community Education Council, whose brief is with the Scottish Office. Surely the Minister has now had time to give a considered judgment on it.

Mr. Wilson: I shall make a brief contribution. In general terms, if what is proposed is good enough for my hon. Friend the Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), it is good enough for me.
In listening to the Minister, I heard the enunciation of an important principle. Talking of the five children in a thousand, he said that money did not matter, and that nothing was too good for them. I ask him directly whether that description comes within 100 miles of the present situation.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I had hoped that I might be rescued with some advice on the questions asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which I believe related to an amendment on community education which Mr. Speaker did not select. However, I was given a piece of paper telling me that those questions were outwith the scope of the amendment.
I believe that I can help the hon. Gentleman a little by saying that we remain committed to community education, and that it seems to me appropriate that it should be the responsibility of the local authority.
I believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) embroidered my words slightly, but certainly the spirit was there. We have made considerable progress. In the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, we provided for an extension of choice for parents of children with special needs, and, for the first time, we provided funding to be made available through local authorities on a discretionary basis for children who require special provision not available in this country and who therefore have to go to centres overseas. Local authorities have done well in the development of integrated provision in schools, in the expansion of services, and in making physical alterations to meet special needs.
There will always be more to be done, and, obviously, that has to be done within the context of resources. I was expressing my personal view on the priorities—that such children are one group who should be at the front of the queue.

Mr. John Maxton: I have only just come in, but I have had some personal experience of the subject, and I should like to say that children recorded as having learning difficulties are not only those with obvious physical or mental disabilities. There are within our normal schools children with specific learning difficulties. It is best to record them, because then they can be identified and money can be spent on them within the normal school system. We are not talking about only five children in a hundred, or whatever number the Minister mentioned.

Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. There are also people with learning difficulties who are not recorded, and who should never be recorded; they do not have special needs. The emphasis in the five-to-14 programme, in reporting and—dare I say it—in testing, is to help to identify needs and see that they are met at an early stage.
I believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was referring to children with special needs who are recorded, and implicit in what he said was the idea that services were not yet of the standard that everyone in the House would like to see.

Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister clarify part of his earlier answer that puzzled me? If a young adult with learning difficulties—say, someone who cannot read and write—wanted to get a job, and so wanted to enter a further education college but could not do so because he had not the basic skill of literacy, and attended a basic literacy course in the community to acquire those skills and to allow him to go to college, would that course be the responsibility of the college, and therefore funded by the college, or would it be an education department responsibility, and therefore funded by the local authority?

Mr. Forsyth: That would be entirely a matter for the college concerned. It could be either. There is no reason why the college could not provide such a service, and it might be encouraged to do so. Equally, the service could be provided through the local authority, perhaps through the secondary school system in the normal way.


I believe that there is agreement that it is desirable for such a facility to be available, and that there ought to be co-operation between local authorities and colleges of education to ensure that it is provided. I believe that the Bill provides for that.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer on this matter. I conclude, in response to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, by saying that there is a great deal to do. This sector does not always have its advocates in pressure groups—although those who represent people with learning difficulties do a splendid job. We did well in our deliberations in Committee. Hon. Members from both sides of the House contributed, and I hope that the new clause accommodates the points that were made in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20

PAYMENT OF GRANTS, ETC. TO FUNDING COUNCIL (No. 2)

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay to the Funding Council in respect of any expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them in connection with their functions under or by virtue of this Part of this Act grants or other payments of such amounts as he may determine.
(2) A grant or other payment paid under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate and such conditions—

(a) may be imposed before, after or at the time such grant or other payment is made; and
(b) may relate to any time, whether before or after such time.

(3) The terms and conditions on which the Secretary of State may make any grants or other payments under this section may include in particular conditions—

(a) enabling him to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by him if any other condition subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with; and
(b) requiring the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to him in accordance with any other condition remains unpaid,

but shall not relate to the application by the Funding Council of any sums derived otherwise than from the Secretary of State.
(4) A condition imposed in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall not have effect as regards anything done, or omitted to have been done, before the date the condition was imposed.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

STUDY OF THE HISTORY, LANGUAGES AND CULTURE OF SCOTLAND

'The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council shall pay particular regard in its funding and in its assessment of the quality of education provided by relevant institutions to the need to ensure that appropriate funds and attention are devoted to the study of the history, languages and culture of Scotland.'.—[Mrs. Ewing].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Fundamental research—
'The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council shall pay particular regard in its funding and in its assessment of the quality of education provided by relevant institutions to the need to ensure that appropriate funds and attention are devoted to fundamental research.'.

Mrs. Ewing: The new clause stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I say at the outset that it is unusual for the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the Scottish National party to be in full agreement, but in this case we are, and I welcome his support.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I cannot resist intervening to ask whether the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Linlithgow at least agree on their opposition to devolution.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will have to ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow what his view is on his official party policy. I certainly endorse my party's policy of independence, but that may be a debate for another occasion. I look forward to discussing it in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh in the near future.
Through new clause 1, we say that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which the SNP has fully endorsed on Second Reading and in Committee, should, in its funding and in its assessment of the quality of education, have regard to the distinctive history, languages and culture of Scotland. That seems an important aspect of the responsibilities of such a council, given the importance attached to those matters by all of us in Scotland.
I hope that I can count on the support of Conservative Members for the importance that we in Scotland attach to those traditions.
On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, there was general agreement that giving Scotland the facility to examine the funding and assessment of its higher education system was in itself a step forward and, in tabling the new clause, my hon. Friends and I hoped to build on that philosophy.
On Second Reading and in Committe, however, we were not aware of the current crisis surrounding the chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university. The Government's funding policy will create a further crisis, and we wish to avoid that.
5.30 pm
Over the past few weeks, all hon. Members will have received correspondence both from the student action committee and from various people in Scotland who are deeply concerned about the future of the chair of Scottish history. I have read with great care the documentation that has been sent to me. I noted from a letter published by the principal of Edinburgh university, Sir David Smith, that only some £30,000 was needed to keep the chair going. In the context of Government spending, that is not even peanuts; it is half a peanut. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to commit themselves to making available as little as £30,000 so that we can retain that important chair in our capital city.
There has been much outrage in Scotland about the possible loss of the chair. The letters that we have received suggest that it is all a matter of balancing commitment to income, but, in my view, there is an obligation on all the


higher education institutions in Scotland to have particular regard to the roots from which they have grown. Surely a nation which has a history as proud and distinct as Scotland's should not be deprived of that facility in its capital city.
It is time to look beyond the balancing of the books. We should state clearly in the Bill that we will recognise our traditions in Scotland—our history, our various languages and our culture.
The Sir William Fraser chair is highly regarded throughout Scotland and the international community. It is interesting to note that, last Wednesday, in a packed meeting, the faculty of art unanimously passed a motion recommending that the chair of Scottish history should not be frozen but should be filled immediately. I understand that the dean informed the meeting that the existing endowment for the period is about £14,957—rather more than a third of the total, including other costs, needed to fund the chair. At the same meeting, Professor Dickinson, who holds the Sir Richard Lodge chair of British history, stated that there was undoubtedly a clear demand for Scottish history courses from abroad as well as from within Great Britain. He also emphasised the increasing demand for the teaching of Scottish history in schools.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Like all Opposition Members, I strongly support the hon. Lady's objective, and I accept that the fundamental problem is Government underfunding, of Edinburgh university in particular. But because of the importance of the chair to Scotland's wider cultural interests, would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make informal representations to Edinburgh university—notwithstanding the fact that direct responsibility for such matters lies with the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mrs. Ewing: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not allow the matter to be brushed aside to the Department of Education and Science—particularly against the background of a Bill dealing with the future of higher education in Scotland. Scottish Ministers have a responsibility to make their voices heard, along with those of academics and individuals throughout Scotland and elsewhere in the world who have commented on the question.
As one who taught history, among other subjects, in the school system in Scotland, and as a graduate of history from both Glasgow and Strathclyde universities, I have found it extremely difficult to establish many sources of information on aspects of Scottish history tied in with the curriculum. One of the specialties that I taught in O-grade history was the post-Napoleonic era. We looked at social and economic change in Britain during that period, which was a time of great upheaval. Every child could find a textbook that referred specifically to the 1819 Peterloo massacre, and everyone understood what happened there, but, when it came to the 1820 martyrs who were executed in the constituency of the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, it was extremely difficult to find material with which to teach the children.
I taught in Stirling and it seemed to me ludicrous that it should be so hard for teachers to find any such information. Fortunately, the situation has changed slightly, partly as a result of the research undertaken at

Edinburgh and at other universities with chairs in Scottish history. We must encourage such research, given the growing demand for the teaching of Scottish history in schools.
I am not adopting a narrow attitude. Every French child grows up with a knowledge of French history, every Spanish child with a knowledge of Spanish history, and every American child with a knowledge of American history. There are still far too many Scottish youngsters without any real knowledge or understanding of their own history, cultural identity or linguistic traditions. The Scottish Office has a responsibility to argue the case clearly with the authorities at Edinburgh university and also to accept the new clause, which places a clear responsibility on the Higher Education Funding Council to take due cognisance of those matters.
One of the great poems of Hugh MacDiarmid—the centenary of whose birth we are celebrating—contains a wonderful phrase:
The present's theirs, the past and future ours".
There is a new renaissance in Scotland—a new interest in the past, which helps people to understand their present circumstances and make decisions about their future. In discussing the new clause, we should be recognising the validity of the words of Hugh MacDiarmid and thus showing our respect to a man who, through his life and work, has brought so much to the Scottish community.
There is also, from Edinburgh university, the wonderful towering poem of Hamish Henderson of the school of Scottish studies:
But there's mair nor' a rauch win' blowin',
Through the Great Glen o' the world the day.
If there is a new wind sweeping through the glens of the world, we have a responsibility to recognise our past and give it the respect to which it is entitled.
In Committee, we debated in full what all of us regarded as the responsibility of our universities for research. Thus, new clause 2 would include in the Bill a matter on which there was consensus in Committee and provide that research should be given full academic freedom and recognised as an important aspect of university life. I hope that the Minister will respond to our pleas.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There can be no doubt that, on the fact of it, new clause 1 is worth supporting. I, too, want to give my full support to the chair of Scottish history at the University of Edinburgh. The reasons that have been advanced for the suspension of that post do not really stand up and this sorry episode should not have happened simply for the sake of the paltry sum of a few thousand pounds in bookkeeping terms.
However, before we support the new clause, we need some assurance from its mover, the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I entirely agree that history is important. People should be aware and proud of their history and culture. However, history is not simply a matter of recalling a catalogue of dates about when certain things happened. It is about looking at events and interpreting them. It is about looking at causes as well as effects. I stress that that must be carried out objectively.
We must leave academics to carry out their research into history and to produce their learned treaties and papers. When teaching history to their students, they should make it clear that there can often be more than one


interpretation of what happened at any particular time. Historians at the time of an event will have a different interpretation of it from those who will come in the future.
The whole idea of university education is not to put a narrow philosophy into people's minds, which they can then regurgitate when they sit their exams and produce what they have been taught on paper. That is contrary to the whole idea of education at every level—whether at primary and secondary school or university and further education—apart, that is, from the sciences, which involve specific matters on which there can be little or no interpretation. In teaching people their history and culture, we should be trying to give them an open mind so that they can look at what is happening and make their own judgment.
Therefore, if we insist that there should be proper provision in universities for the teaching of Scottish history and culture, I hope that there will be no bullying or pressure put on academics to accept as orthodox that which the Scottish National party happens to believe is Scottish history on any one day. That would be extremely dangerous. Indeed, I believe that the SNP is following a dangerous course. Either wittingly or unwittingly—and I am sorry to say that I believe that it is doing so wittingly —the SNP is stirring up anti-English feeling in Scotland. That is highly dangerous, and its members should put a stop to it as soon as possible.
It is no use continually blaming the English for all Scotland's problems and ills. The slogan "They've got ours" sounds very nice, but it clearly implies that all our problems are caused by the English. We are told that the union of the crowns and of the Parliaments has brought to Scotland nothing but poverty, misery, unemployment, bad housing and, indeed, every evil that we all reject. Not so very long ago the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) used to tell us that the evils that afflict our society in Scotland were inflicted on us by Scottish capitalists.
There is no evidence to suggest that Scottish landowners, shipowners, pitowners and industrialists behaved any less harshly to their workers than their English or Welsh counterparts. I still believe strongly that the ills that the people of Scotland suffered were caused by those who ran the capitalist society. The Union is neither here nor there in that argument. I do not pretend to be a great historian, but I do not know of any strong parallel in England for the highland clearances, although there may be some analogies—

Mr. Wilson: I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend is saying, but apart from the history of the tyranny of Scotland's indigenous capitalism, does my hon. Friend agree that many other parts of the world have good reason to take a historical view of the Scots as imperialists and industrialists? One does not need to go any further than the areas of Britain that were owned by the Bute family —a very Scottish industrial family—to realise that one would not get many votes for the humanity or superior intelligence of the Scots in the areas where that family held sway.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although I do not want to trespass on the time of the House by going wider on that subject, I should point out

that there is a great debate among historians about whether the true purpose of imperialism and colonialism was to spread Christianity and civilisation or to spread commerce. I have no doubt that it was for commerce. All the evidence suggests that the nationality of the colonialists was not important. Whether they were Scottish, English, German, French or Belgian made no difference—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Or American.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, or American in more recent times. Nationality made no difference. Philosophy, not nationality, was what was important. That is why I believe that the SNP has made such a fundamental error, but it all depends on what the SNP says tomorrow, because it said different things yesterday and on the day before that. We are now told that there will be a great future for the Scottish working class if we jump into the same bed as the very people who inflicted those evils upon us in the past. We are now to cuddle up to the Scottish industrialists, financiers and house owners who will put everything right in the new millenium if the SNP gets its way—[Interruption.] The SNP must make up its mind. It is either the Scottish socialist republican party or the Scottish Poujadist party. It must be one or the other. The SNP cannot have it both ways, much as it tries to do so. The sooner that all this is exposed, the better. The SNP must be aware that its great danger is excessive zeal. I have forgotten the exact quotation from Senator Goldwater—

Mr. Dick Douglas: "Moderation in the pursuit"—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) obviously remembers the exact quotation. We all know that excessive zeal is the cause of a great deal of unrest and unhappiness, and that it brings with it disasters untold.
In the developments in the Soviet Union, we are seeing the rise of the narrow nationalist fascism that we all thought had gone. I do not want to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Soviet Union, but whatever else one may think about it, I make no bones about saying that I wish that its education system had been able to eradicate antagonism among its people. What has happened in the Soviet Union shows, if nothing else, that attempts to drive concepts into people do not bring about a change of mind or heart, but simply suppress the original feelings.
That is why I believe that my argument for open discussion and debate and for a lack of pressure to be placed on academics in the area of Scottish history and culture is all the more important. The SNP must realise that blaming the English for all our ills is just one step away from blaming the Jews and the Pakistanis—[Interruption.] Yes, it is as close as that. If the SNP does not understand that, it understands nothing about the dangerous side of nationalism. That is why I am totally opposed to the SNP.
The great sadness of all this is that Scotland has a great history of internationalism. Yes, much of its history is of exploitation, but the Scottish working class has always had a great tradition of internationalism—of brotherhood, sisterhood and comradeship. But all that will be set aside if we take the narrow path of always blaming somebody else. I am referring to the hundreds of years of history against which the Labour party, the early trade unionists


and the early socialists fought. We fought against such evils not because we were Scots but because we made common cause with the English and the Welsh working classes as we sought to avoid those evils. I can recall the days when we stood firm on that and stood together.
The SNP is now taking a despicable road and unless I can have an absolute assurance that it rejects all the fascist stuff that is now coming from it—and soon—I shall have some difficulty in supporting new clause 1.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I support new clause 1, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her hon. Friends, and everything that she has said.
The question about the chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university is not a party political matter; it concerns us all. The university lecturers would not take it kindly if an imputation was made that they were teaching a particular philosophy and that they were not open minded and even handed in teaching their students. I know sufficient about the department to say that its staff are talented and open minded.
The new clause is particularly pertinent because of the announcement by the central management group of Edinburgh university not to replace the professor for up to two years. That is a worry. Could that mean two years, five years or even 10 years? We must take that into consideration. The proposal is so extraordinary and insensitive that it is difficult to believe even that it can be contemplated by Edinburgh university in Scotland's capital city, which has available all the research facilities of the Scottish Record Office and the national library of Scotland.
The Department has already been reduced to four members. The equivalent department at Glasgow university still has six members of staff and St. Andrew's university—the Minister's old university—has six members of staff. I believe that Aberdeen university has just established its first chair of Celtic.

Mr. Dalyell: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady because she is making a serious speech. Would she reconsider the use of the word "insensitive"? People at Edinburgh university to whom I have talked are hurt at being accused of being insensitive. They face desperate problems and they are not insensitive to this matter.

Mrs. Michie: Those people may be hurt, but we must make it clear that it is extraordinary that it should be the professorship of Scottish history that is for the chop or is to be put aside for two years. If they do not take that into consideration, they are being insensitive.
The new clause points out that the funding council must pay particular regard to ensuring that appropriate funds are devoted to the study of Scottish history. The hon. Lady told the House the sum required and the sum endowed by Sir William Fraser. If the chair is not filled, what will happen to the £15,000 endowment funds? Where will they go? Will they go into a central treasury box of the university?
The chair and department of Scottish history at Edinburgh university are prestigious. The department has seen a remarkable and most welcome growth in the number of students from home and abroad wishing to study Scottish history. I cannot express too strongly my dismay. Who are these people? They must be so out of touch—

Mr. Dalyell: They are not.

Mrs. Michie: They must he so out of touch and so distanced from what Scots consider important if they can contemplate such a move.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not fair.

Mrs. Michie: Hon. Members may say that that is not fair, but we must state that clearly in the House today.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady has mentioned the university in my constituency. I would be much happier with what she was saying if she would recognise that a contributory factor to Edinburgh university's financial problem is the financial regime under which the Government are forcing it to operate. The university is in an invidious position. It is having to choose between all sorts of posts. I, too, want to see that chair reinstated and the post filled, but she must not allow the Government off the hook by blaming the university without accepting that the root cause of the problems at Edinburgh and all our universities is the Government's funding regime.

Mrs. Michie: I accept that the Government's policies have made it extremely difficult for higher education institutions and universities to operate in Scotland. Nevertheless, the decision is for the university authorities. For me and millions of Scots the priority is the Scottish history department.
The hon. Lady talked about Scottish history being taught in schools. Many of us, particularly my generation, still feel a deep regret that so little Scottish history was taught in schools in our time. Although that has improved a bit, it has not improved enough. I cannot forget and nor can many others the deliberate damage done historically to the Gaelic language when it was forbidden in schools and playgrounds. To this day thousands still cannot pursue their scholastic careers in their mother tongue. Do not let us repeat the same mistakes as before. If the decision is not reversed and the chair filled forthwith, the university will be diminished in the eyes of Scotland and the world.
Nobody should underestimate the feeling about this. We care about our culture, traditions and history, and we have hopes for the future. I welcome the support of the important faculty of arts. At a meeting on 29 January it gave its unanimous backing to filling the chair. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will use their undoubted influence in this matter and will speak to the authorities at Edinburgh university, conveying the genuine concern felt in the House tonight.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I support the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and other hon. Members. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in highlighting this issue as assiduously as he has done with many other issues on behalf of not just Edinburgh university but other universities.
This is a serious matter that goes beyond the chair of Scottish history. That chair is not the only one vacant at Edinburgh university. I am only sorry that some Johnnies-come-lately have jumped on the bandwagon to save the chair of Scottish history when last year, when the chair of Russian was frozen, we did not hear one peep from them.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not true.

Mr. Griffiths: It is very much true.
I welcome the support for the chair of history from other parties, but I would welcome their support also for the other 30 chairs that are vacant out of the 100 or so established professorial chairs at Edinburgh university. I would welcome their support for the vacant chairs of astronomy, bacteriology, conservative dentistry, crop production, English literature, African literature, molecular parasitology, natural philosophy, oral surgery, orthopaedic surgery, Russian, Scottish history—the subject of the new clause—statistics, tropical animal health and a dozen or so other chairs.
We know who the real culprits are. We know who is responsible for those vacancies as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has just made it clear. The Government have handicapped the university by crucifying university finances during the past 13 years. That drove Sir John Burnett, the chair of the university—an erstwhile Conservative supporter, I am sure—to make an outspoken attack on the Government's mishandling and mismanagement of Edinburgh university. That charge also applies to their treatment of other universities.
Principals, vice-chancellors and staff have been driven to distraction by the Government's philistine attitude towards higher education institutions in our country. The new clause offers us the opportunity to deplore the fact that the Government have forced Edinburgh university —I am sure that the same is true of the other universities for which my hon. Friends have spoken up so eloquently —to freeze appointments to posts. The chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university is to remain vacant for two years, but some of us are sceptical about whether that post will be filled after that. Appointment to the chair of Russian studies has also been frozen for five years. However, appointment to the chairs of some of the other subjects I have listed have been frozen for five years already and, in some cases, longer. It appears that some people have opened their eyes to that reality only today.
6 pm
I hope that all the opposition parties will endorse the early-day motion that I have tabled today, which condemns the severe financial hardship that the Government have inflicted upon Edinburgh university and other universities. I do not believe that any action could be more damaging to the reputation of Edinburgh university than to put a freeze on appointing the chair of Scottish history. My hon. Friends and I hope to meet Sir David Smith, the principal, to discuss that decision as well as the problem of the other vacant chairs.
It is important that the Secretary of State should accept the invitation that I now extend to him to meet those hon. Members who represent Edinburgh and Lothian. He should also lobby his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to ensure that proper funding is given to Edinburgh university. I know that other colleagues will wish us to express similar sentiments on behalf of the institutions in their constituencies.
The buck stops with those who will sit on the Treasury Bench for a few more months, and those months are critical for the campaign to unfreeze the appointment to the chair of Scottish history. Edinburgh's international and domestic reputation has been damaged by the decision

to freeze appointment to that post and to so many other chairs. It is time that the Government recognised that damage and accepted the new clause.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: From looking around me, I believe that I have the privilege of being the only graduate researcher who has worked in Edinburgh's leading institution. I refer to Heriot-Watt university, not the other place, which is known to some as Edinburgh university.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is aware that part of the research study that led to my doctoral thesis related to the establishment of the Aberdeen Steam Trawler Engineers and Firemen's Association—not that anyone, I regret to say, ever reads that thesis.
I have great sympathy for the concern that has been expressed about the chair of Scottish history. I want to make two points about funding for research and, with respect and a total lack of modesty, I believe that they are extremely important. First, whichever party is in government—we are coming towards a change—research funds should not be denied to those who work outwith the orthodoxies of all disciplines in our universities and research institutions. Whether one is talking about history, sociology or even the physical sciences, some scholars are defined by orthodox scientists and professors—often powerful figures in established departments within faculties—as having an unorthodox approach to a particular study of a certain subject. It is often felt that that non-conformist should be denied research funds. It is difficult enough for such non-conformists to gain advancement because the career structure of universities is, to a considerable extent, dictated by the conventional approach. That was spelt out by C. Wright Mills in his seminal work published 40 years ago.
If one chooses to follow the unconventional path—I note that I have the attention of one such scholar on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)—and one chooses to go against conventional wisdom, one can be penalised in terms of being denied promotion, or even security of tenure. The funding authorities within universities and at a higher level must respect such unconventional research. I regret to say that my research was utterly conventional; I am not claiming to be a Marxist scholar.
Secondly, I do not have anything against the ancient universities, but funds must be made available to those who work in our newer, younger universities. It does not necessarily follow that the creme de la creme of research talent is to be found in the ancient universities alone. I am not making a special plea as I have no intention of returning to research. My intention is to return to this place with, I hope, an increased majority. It is important that funds are made available to Paisley college—soon to be the university of Paisley—the new university at Glasgow and to Aberdeen university. However, I accept that many years ago Aberdeen had two universities, Aberdeen and King's college.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is the most ancient university in the country.

Dr. Godman: Yes, I accept that. Those new institutions, including Napier college, are home to first-class researchers. Their accessibility to funds for their research


projects should be unconstrained and they should be treated in the same way as those working in our more venerable institutions.
The unorthodox, non-conformist social or physical scientist, historian or linguist should not be denied access to research funds. We must also acknowledge that many first-class researchers work in our newer institutions. They, too, should have ready access to any research funds. We must have no second-class institutions among our universities. Privileges should not be given to ancient universities simply because of their venerability. We must recognise talent, even if it is unorthodox.
I hope that those two points have been noted by those on both Front Benches. Most importantly, I hope that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have taken them on board.

Mr. Douglas: Originally I thought that new clauses 1 and 2 were not linked, but, on reflection, I believe that they are. The burden of my remarks will relate to new clause 2.
It is not my intention to make a speech similar to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), except to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said. What we are asking for, and what we must try to display in this House, is tolerance. [Interruption.] Oh yes, tolerance of different views. I was an academic, and I never expected my students to take me as other than someone who had a Labour bias and held Labour principles. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is chattering from a sedentary position, should bide his whish a little.
It is the responsibility of any academic, particularly in the social sciences, to be honest with his or her students, who expect the university or institute of higher education to be a forum for all ideas. No matter how objective a lecturer tries to be, his responsibility is to let the students know that he speaks from a certain bias.
I was brought up in Govan and was taught that the only good Tory was Torygellig, and he played for Rangers. If that was not biased, I do not know what biased is.

Mr. McAllion: We were told exactly the opposite in Springburn.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member confirms my point. An academic who deals with susceptible and impressionable individuals, even at the ages of 18, 19 or 20, particularly if he teaches economics, political theory, politics or Scottish history, should let his students recognise his bias. He should make them realise that a university is not simply a forum for lectures but a community of students and academics. Students will probably learn more there than in a formal lecture.
The new clause provides that the funding council should take cognisance of the fact that it will deal with Scottish circumstances. If we are to pursue the truth in relation to Scotland, we must consider the fact that we are not all good. The Douglases were terrible people, with an extremely bad record, and I dare say that that will continue.
We do not seek to say that the Scots are better than anyone else but that we are every bit as good. The whole thesis of the Scottish National party, which seeks independence in Europe, is to cease blaming everybody else. We must stop blaming the English, make our own decisions and take the blame for them. That is what taking personal, independent decisions is about.
I was amazed to read a Labour party press release today saying that the Scottish National party wanted separatism, and that we would be dealing with a market of some 5 million. The thrust of research is that it should be based on a wide market. Why is it fundamental that we devote resources to research in Scottish institutions of higher education? Any academic institution must have research. One of the most impressive books that I have read recently was a biography of Stephen Hawking. If he were to enter the Chamber now, we would wonder who that poor specimen was, but he has one of the great minds of our time.

Mr. Ernie Ross: He is still a member of the Labour party.

Mr. Douglas: I do not deny that he may be a member of the Labour party—good luck to him. I do not care which party he belongs to, because he has a great mind. He has gathered round him students of a high calibre because he is capable of doing certain fundamental research in Oxford. Although he may have been bid away to other institutions in the United States, he stayed in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to attract people of that calibre, because there are few of them.
If an institute of higher education is to succeed, it must be able to devote resources to research. That is the purpose of new clause 2. Educational institutions must be attractive in order that we can compete. We can blame Governments of all political colours—certainly two political colours in the United Kingdom—for starving universities of funds. Not only the Tories have done that. They have altered the proportion of funds in the past couple of years—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Upwards.

Mr. Douglas: I concede that. However, in relation to need, we are well behind other nations' industrial market strategies. We have devoted far too much of our fundamental research expenditure to defence purposes and the spin-off, in terms of our industrial market share, has not come about. Scotland is a small nation that must exist on its intellectual capabilities, which is why the new clause has been tabled.
The thesis of the Scottish National party is not to be inward-looking. If we are to consider Scottish history, let us do so objectively. However, unless we provide resources for it, we shall not get objectivity. If we deny resources to an organisation, it cannot work.
The great work of Professor Barrow, who was mentioned earlier, was about Bruce and the community of the realm. Not everyone agrees that Bruce was a great hero. Some people think that he was the Neil Kinnock of his day. He was a politician, and the true patriot was Wallace, which no one likes to hear. In making that assertion, I doubt whether I have carried all hon. Members present with me, but that is a subject for discussion and dispute. Unless we devote resources to research, we shall not achieve the necessary analysis and objectivity.
I therefore hope that new clause 1 will at least have the unanimous support of Opposition Members.

Mr. Wilson: I wish to support the new clause without digressing too much. It is a little rich of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to tell us that the


Scottish National party is no longer about anti-Englishness. I can think of no more inherently anti-English slogan than "They've got ours". Those who analyse politics from a class dimension rather than a nationalistic dimension are bound to ask, "Who are 'they'?" Are "they" the working people of Liverpool and Newcastle?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Unfortunately, they do not get it either.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Lady is right, but I am bound to point out gently that there is no implication of that in the poster.
Are "they" the sons and daughters of Corby steel workers? Are "they" the tens of thousands of people in the English telephone directories whose surnames begin with Mac because they were the victims of highland landlordism? To categorise people as them and us is not a promising platform on which to proceed on the outward-looking basis to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I support the motion. It should be axiomatic that any educational organisation in Scotland concerned with funding or academic curricula should take account of the Scottish dimension in education. However, I warn the hon. Lady that merely having academic chairs does not guarantee much. The paradox is that I join other hon. Members in deploring the standard of Scottish history teaching, and the place of Scottish culture, in many dimensions of the Scottish education system after a long period in which all those academic chairs have existed. Precious little good they have done us in terms of teaching the history of the ordinary Scottish people or, to quote a particular personal interest, the history of the highlands.
When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West referred to the greatest work of the retiring holder of the chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh University I thought that he was going to mention his recent column in The Sun, which is where Professor Barrow has ended up—

Mr. George Galloway: Like Professor Sillars!

Mr. Wilson: I shall not take up that remark, as this is a conciliatory speech.
I think that the penultimate holder of the chair of Scottish history was Professor Gordon Donaldson, now professor emeritus in Scottish history at Edinburgh university. He was the David Irving of the highland clearances and made a life's work of proving that the clearances did not exist—it would be difficult to identify a more revisionist or more establishment historian and, thus at root, a more anti-Scottish historian. We can have as many chairs as we want, but if the people filling them come from the establishment and have an interest in teaching establishment history, they will find a way of doing so.
The chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university should be maintained. I agree, as I am sure would the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), that the cuts involving other chairs and courses should not have been made. They were made due to the lack of funding in Scottish higher education, and responsibility rests with the Government. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that there are at least two nations within Scotland. Shetlanders might argue that there are three. Within every

country there are various nations, and within Scotland there is a distinctive Gaelic and highland nation with its own history, culture and identity.
If people think that the teaching of Scottish history as a whole is bad, they should consider the teaching of highland history. They could go to any of the districts in the highlands and islands of Scotland—the seat of some of the most radical activity in our country's history during the past 150 years—and find that the great majority of people who had been educated in those counties had heard little of the region's history.
I was educated in the highlands and studied history at a Scottish university. It is my shame and my loss that it was not due to the formal education system that I learned anything of the true history of the highlands and islands —the history of the common people, of landlordism, and the courageous and radical struggle against landlordism.
When we set up chairs and academic councils to form a framework, let us not forget that the content also matters. At least one of the chairs should be in the highlands; not to teach partisan history or argue the political case through history, but to let people know the facts of their own culture and heritage. In that way, people can draw their own conclusions.
I think that it was in his introduction to his "History of the Working Classes of Scotland" that Tom Johnston wrote that anybody who did not know the past could not understand the present or have any chance of moulding the future.

Mr. Worthington: The Opposition are happy to support both new clauses and the sentiments contained in them. Much of today's debate has centred on the position at Edinburgh university and the chair of Scottish history. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said firmly that the problem did not relate solely to Edinburgh or one chair, but was a problem of resourcing, and had to be tackled. On the other side of Scotland, Glasgow university is heading for a £2·7 million deficit unless it reduces its teaching staff. It is not just Edinburgh university that has a problem; the difficulty exists throughout higher education and is due to under-resourcing.
The Government make much of their current expansion of the higher education system. But any fool Government can let students in; it takes a good Government to ensure that the quality of education is good. It will take years before we see the consequences of expansion without resourcing. One can see some results of under-funding in the condition of facilities, but the mental, academic and scholarly results will take years to emerge.
Unfortunately, there is no survey of the condition of educational buildings in Scotland, but if we consider the condition of buildings as surveyed by the polytechnics and colleges funding council, a graph on the quality of polytechnic buildings contains a category "generally good". Edinburgh university does not even register on the graph, whereas nearly 60 per cent. of the buildings are classified as having major shortcomings.
One can see a major problem in a building, but other grave problems involving staff replacement are becoming apparent. Anyone involved in universities will say that there will be a problem with staff quality in a few years when the present staff retire. At the bottom of the scale of those involved in universities is an underclass of people


employed on poverty wages and short-term contracts who are not receiving the quality of research and other experience that they need.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: What additional resources for universities—in specific terms—would the Opposition make available were they to form a Government?

Mr. Worthington: The Minister knows that it is not possible to do that, but we recognise that there is a major under-funding problem. Survey after survey shows that this country is falling behind others on research. We recognise the problem, but the Government do not even seem to do that.

Mr. Forsyth: It is no good the hon. Gentleman telling the House that there is a problem of under-funding and criticising the substantial additional resources that the Government have made available, then declaring that it is impossible for him to say what he would do were he in government. The truth is that the hon. Member for Monklands would not let him add a single cent to the fund and it is sheer humbug for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to complain when a Labour Government could do no better than this Government have done and this Government's record is second to none.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the hon. Member for Monklands would not allow a Labour Government to take that action, but I have never been consulted on the matter.

Mr. Worthington: I shall return to that point later.

Mr. Forsyth: Answer my question.

Mr. Worthington: I shall do so in my own way in my own time.
New clause 1 is about supporting Scottish culture and the Scottish way of life, and we are happy to support those sentiments. Our support for the Bill is centred on the advantages to Scotland of the funding of institutions within Scotland so that different priorities can apply. There would be an enormous advantage in defending Scottish institutions if we were able to link the rest of the education system with the higher education system. That would be the icing on the cake, and is an extremely valuable initiative. It was amusing, during an enjoyable Committee, to see the Minister realising what a good case we had—albeit, somewhat belatedly. There are great advantages in the Bill in terms of defending the Scottish education system, but that aspect must be linked with a Scottish Parliament, which would have prevented the initiatives of recent years.
In Committee we had a valuable discussion on research and our worries on the issue. The Opposition's role is to ask the Government about their attitude and their action in order to find out whether the amount of money devoted to research is adequate. We are committed, as are the Government, to ending the binary divide, but the Government do not seem to realise the consequences for research. As we said in Committee, it is not good enough for them to say that the polytechnics and other central institutions will maintain their traditional mission.

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to say what we will do for research through the research councils. In 1992 the

funding for research will top the £1 billion mark for the first time and over the following three years there will be a 19 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman is saying that research funding is not enough. Can he tell us how much more a Labour Government would provide? I was referring to his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, who is also a Member for Monklands. If the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cannot say how much more he would give, he should not waste the time of the House nor con the country by suggesting that he could do anything about it. The truth is that Labour Members are not prepared to put any money behind the promises which they have been making all over the country.

Mr. Worthington: That is not true. In the 1980s we would never have allowed the share of national wealth devoted to education to fall, while it rose in other countries. That was a statement of the Government's priorities.
At the moment eight universities in Scotland compete for the research pot. In future 12 universities and 13 central institutions within Scotland will be competing for the research pot. So, where eight institutions were competing for the funding in the past, in future there will be be 25. Inevitably that means that there will be cuts.
Even without increasing the money, the Government have to explain how Scotland will be dealt with in the selectivity exercise. The bulk of research money has been allocated to universities on the basis of the number of students. Because Scotland educates more students proportionately than the rest of the United Kingdom, more money was allocated to Scotland. The numbers factor as a way of allocating research funding is being abolished. Therefore, less money will be allocated to Scotland on a per capita basis and a loss will have to be made up.
The Government are adopting a selectivity—by department exercise. The top departments will be graded 5 and the bottom departments 1. That will help the big departments in the big universities. Departments will be graded on a historical basis. If they were successful in the past, they will get a grade 5; if they were not, they will be grade 1.
Academics fear that that will bring in league tables which will make it virtually impossible for an institution to get promotion. Universities with a good record will attract more money and staff will go to them. I hope that the Minister can answer the fear of academics. Recently research money has been gravitating towards the south-east where there is a concentration of large universities and departments.
As to universities which appear in the top 10 of any research council category, such as the Universities Funding Council, the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research, Scotland in total, mainly through Edinburgh and Glasgow taking six of the places, has seven top 10 places. London, with all its colleges, on its own has 11 top 10 places. If there is to be purely a selectivity exercise, academics in Scotland are worried that there will be less money because 25 institutions will have to


go into the same pot as eight in the past, and that it will be difficult for them to get their fair share of research council funding.
In Committee we had an extensive debate on the lack of a planning role for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. Many small institutions will be encouraged to compete against each other. The Minister must deal with the fear that in that fight they will lose sight of the larger prize and that excessive competition will lead to the weakening of the institutions. That is not an argument for all the institutions to come together in a university of Scotland. The ruling out by the Government of a planning function for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will prevent the co-operation which many of those institutions want. There is a lack of concern by the Government about that.
Were I in the Minister's shoes, the first thing that I would do on research would be to commission research into the adequacy of the funding. All the evidence that I have been able to find shows great concern about the Government's sponsorship of research and its allocation within Scotland. For example, the Government's sponsorship of research through departments has been falling for years.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall have one more go. The hon. Gentleman talked about what he would do if he were in my shoes. If he were the Minister with responsibility for those matters—at present a Minister in the Department of Education and Science—how much extra would he make available for research on top of the record £1 billion which the Government have made available?

Mr. Worthington: The first thing that any Education Minister should do is commission research and ask his Department about the adequacy of the research base. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology said:
We recommend that the Government use this period of grace"—
when there was an extra £10 million—
to take an overview of spending under the science budget as a whole and to consider whether, in view of the alarming response of research councils to the present settlement, they are content to live with the consequences of their public expenditure policy for science.
The Select Committee said that the Government's funding of science was disastrous.
Similarly, when looking at a Community framework for research and development, the Select Committee said the same about Britain's performance when it said that we were falling behind every other country in Europe in civil research and development. The Government have been dependent upon industry to fill the hole caused by their own lack of funding for research. Because of the recession it is unlikely that industry can step in. We are worried that the Government have not done a serious appraisal of the need for basic, fundamental research. They have not considered that issue. The Government's record of funding research over the years has been deplorable. They must now ask themselves whether the system that they are setting up so casually will lead to a strengthening of the research base in Scottish universities or whether, as many fear, it will weaken that base. I do not get the impression

that the Government, with all their resources, have done any work on this which will reassure the people who work in the colleges and universities of Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: This has been an interesting debate. Usually I do not intervene too frequently in speeches by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), but this time I intervened on three occasions. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that funding for research purposes was inadequate. He refused to acknowledge the large increase—to more than £1 billion —that the Government have provided or the 19 per cent. increase that we propose over the next three years, and he refused to say by how much a Labour Government would increase that funding.
When I pressed the hon. Gentleman, he said that the first thing he would do if he became a Minister would be to commission research to find out what was happening, yet he seems to have done enough research already to be able to claim that present funding is inadequate. Why then will he not give a commitment? The answer is that his speech was sheer cant and humbug.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) came to our deliberations, treated us to a speech and left. He advanced the view that Edinburgh university's problems were entirely of the Government's making. He made no reference to the management difficulties that Edinburgh university is experiencing or to the fact that the university is unique in Scotland in having a deficit problem. That problem is due to the mismanagement of resources, because of which hard decisions have had to be taken.
Although I cannot commend the new clause to the House, I can appreciate why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) sought to raise the matter. I can appreciate the worries about Edinburgh university perhaps not being able immediately to fill the chair of Scottish history when the present incumbent retires this autumn.
I have seen a letter from the principal of Edinburgh university which appeared in The Scotsman dated 31 January. In it, the principal made it clear that no decision had been taken that the chair should remain vacant for two years—certainly not by administrators. I think that the hon. Lady may have seen the letter for herself.

Mr. Worthington: If Edinburgh university is unique, why is Glasgow university heading for a £2·7 million deficit which will mean non-replacement of staff?

Mr. Forsyth: That is an assertion. I said that Edinburgh university was unique among the institutions in having a deficit. Now the hon. Gentleman suggests that Glasgow may, if it does not take certain steps, find itself in a particular position. I have no information about that. My point was that many universities under central institutions in Scotland are not in that position. It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to argue that Edinburgh's problems are a consequence of Government action, given that Government funds, through the funding council and directly to other institutions, have meant that they have none of these problems. Indeed, there are record numbers of students in higher and further education in Scotland, thanks to the additional funding provided by the Government.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister need go no further than along the road to Stirling university, on whose court I


served. Without going into too much detail, I can tell him that the university is working under considerable financial limitations. It is not quite truthful, therefore, to tell the House that Edinburgh is unique. Other universities work under similar restraints, although they may not be of the same magnitude.

Mr. Forsyth: I can only communicate the information given to me: these institutions are not running into deficit. Stirling received the largest increase in support of any institution and it is going from strength to strength—[Interruption.] Opposition Members must draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for that, but it is due in no small part to the enterprise and success generated in and by the institution.
The hon. Member for Moray spoke about the importance of a knowledge of Scottish history, even though much of her speech was devoted to what happens in schools. I absolutely agree with her, and I hope that she will support the foreword that I have written to a report on environmental studies stressing the importance of subject teaching and of giving children a grounding in history, geography and science—and, of course, Scottish history. Subject-based teaching has a significant part to play in the later stages of primary school.
The hon. Lady treated us to quite a selection of poetry. She, like me, benefited from studying in the days before the trendies decided that didactic teaching was bad news and that rote learning was to be discouraged. The hon. Lady treated us to a poem by MacDiarmid. Perhaps she remembers the lines:
Mars is braw in crammasy,
Venus in her green silk gown,
The auld mune shaks her gowden feathers;
Their starry talk's a wheen o'blethers".
I have never heard such "a wheen o' blethers" as we heard today from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He spent his time in Committee arguing that we should take action to limit the Bill's powers in respect of academic freedom and the consequences that arise from that for conditions of grants and powers of direction. Today, he argues that it would be right—I have no doubt that he will vote for the new clause—for the Government to intervene by statute in the affairs of a particular university—

Mr. Worthington: I suggested no such thing. The Minister must withdraw that statement.

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to withdraw it. I take the hon. Gentleman's remarks to mean that he will not vote for the new clause.

Mr. Worthington: Wrong.

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his position clear.

Mr. Worthington: We have argued extensively that the Government should not interfere in the academic affairs of institutions. We stand by that; we will not alter that line at all. We also support the sentiment behind the new clause —that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council should ensure stimulation of Scottish culture, not interference in individual institutions.

Mr. Forsyth: That is most extraordinary. We have heard of no other example of an institution in Scotland at

which there is a problem to do with the teaching of Scottish history. The whole debate has centred on Edinburgh university. The justification for the new clause lies in what is happening there. The hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of energy to arguing for an arm's length policy—a policy which leaves these matters to the funding council and which does not give powers of discretion that are institution-specific. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman is going to support a new clause whose mover has made it clear that it is motivated by what is happening at a particular university. That seems contradictory.
The allocation of resources to universities is a matter for the funding council. The Government are quite properly not involved in such decisions and it is nonsense to suggest that Edinburgh university has been singled out for harsh treatment, or that its recent financial problems derive from Government policy. It is widely understood that Edinburgh's deficit arises from internal financial management problems which are now being tackled. A recovery plan is in place.
As for new clause 2, one of the most important functions of the funding council will be to encourage higher quality research. I do not believe that new clause 2 would add to its ability to do so.
Apart from the additional resources which we have made available, the research councils will continue to operate on a United Kingdom basis. At present, the other main source of public funds for research, besides the research councils, is the Universities Funding Council. Its role will now pass to the new funding council, which is recognised in clause 34 which gives it powers to fund institutions both for the provision of education and for the undertaking of research. It is neither necessary nor appropriate that research should be singled out as new clause 2 suggests.
The new funding council will have considerable resources to go to basic and strategic research. We have already made it clear that we do not expect institutions to change their existing missions. We expect those that have concentrated on teaching and on industry-sponsored applied research and development to continue to do so, although it will be open to them to compete for the new council's research funds in areas in which they have particular strengths.

Mr. Mike Watson: In Committee, I raised with the Minister the point about the two-tier structure which will inevitably develop after the new universities are created within the next two years. He told me that there would be a concentration on teaching or on research among the different institutions. That is the fear of the universities that have written to me and to other hon. Members in Committee.
The Minister failed to give me an assurance, although he talked about £274 million new money for research over the next three years. That is welcome, but the point is how the new universities will manage to grab a slice of that cake. The central institutions had no research income other than that which they were able to gain on their own. How will they be able to compete with the existing universities? Either they will not be able to compete or, if they can, a proportion of the money available will be taken away from the existing universities. Universities such as


Stirling, Dundee and Aberdeen will face retrenchment and will become mere teaching institutions. How does the Minister foresee that problem being avoided?

Mr. Forsyth: I have already explained that we have published the additional provision for research which was set out in the Government's public expenditure plans. If the hon. Gentleman is advancing a case that those funds are inadequate, he must ask his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) why he refuses to give a commitment to spend a cent more.

Mr. Watson: What proportion of money?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is talking not about the absolute amount, but about distribution, I can tell him that funds will be allocated to the institutions that can devote them to the best effect. Institutions will compete for the funds. The hon. Gentleman is correct to point to the role of the central institutions in getting applied research and sponsorship from industry. Their basic mission statements will not change, but they will be able to compete for research funds according to the quality of research. The hon. Gentleman is right to argue that some of that research is of such quality that the institutions will benefit.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made the most extraordinary speech. I have no brief to support the Scottish National party and I share the hon. Gentleman's revulsion about the way in which that party seeks to blame England and the Westminster Parliament for every deficiency, sometimes invented and sometimes real, in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman sought to lecture the House after 12 years of the Scottish Labour party telling people in Scotland that they were hard done by, that they got a rotten deal from Westminster and that public expenditure was not one quarter more north of the border than it was south of the border.
I am glad that the tune has changed. The Daily Record now extols the virtues of the Westminster system for Scotland. That is a change of tune by the Scottish Labour party. The hon. Gentleman must bear some of the responsibility for the resentment and for the rise of nationalism about which he now has the temerity to complain in the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister cannot point to a single word in any of my speeches in which I have claimed that the responsibility for the difficulties in Scotland was due to the Westminster Parliament or to the English. I have always put the blame on the Tories, which is where it lies.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has spent the past six months arguing that the health service in Scotland is underfunded when it is in fact funded to the extent of 25 per cent. more than in England and well beyond what the hon. Gentleman proposes on his own party's behalf. He knows full well that he and his colleagues have sought to fight the Government by fighting the Westminster system, and that they have played straight into the hands of the Scottish National party. I urge the House to reject the new clauses.

Mr. Dalyell: In Committee, I had a great deal to say about research, but because the House wants to get on and

because I have given undertakings to the Whips, I will scrap my copious notes on research. However, I want to say something about the chair at Edinburgh university and about new clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and I are fretting a bit about what the Minister said about the mismanagement—the word he used—at Edinburgh university. It is not quite as simple as that. I asked the Minister to put the matter in terms of partial mismanagement at certain stages of the past 30 years. Those of us, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central and I, who are immersed in the matter know that the problems go back to Sir Edward Appleton's time as vice-chancellor and are not of recent making.

Dr. Godman: Good point.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says, "Good point." That is the truth of the matter
Another part of the truth is that, when the Minister asks about other universities in Scotland, he should realise that Glasgow suffers from almost the same problems and is getting into difficulties. The other universities may have special circumstances. The special circumstances of Edinburgh, as I think the Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), will admit, are shared by the great universities of Manchester and Leeds. Many of the universities whose buildings were constructed in the previous century and scattered throughout our great cities have maintenance problems. Sir David Smith and his senior colleagues the year before last went over the maintenance problems of running Edinburgh university.
They are horrendous.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to acknowledge that I did not intend to imply that the difficulties experienced in the management at Edinburgh university were to be attributed to the present management team. Those difficulties are now being addressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are great management difficulties. I was trying to make the point that it is wrong to suggest that the problem arises because of Government action in respect of the funding regime, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is still absent from the Chamber.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to pursue the matter,
I want to return to the subject of the chair of history. When we were first approached by the students, Sharon Adams and Kirsty Lingstadt who is one of the many Norwegians at the university, I was greatly impressed by the fact that the students were prepared to go to such lengths to defend their own department. The natural reaction of a politician is that, when students and young people care so much about their department, they deserve a proper hearing.
I told the students that their next port of call was the dean of the faculty of arts. Naturally, I rang up Eric Fernie, the chairman of the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland—like others, I have greatly benefited from the visits around Scotland of the Ancient Monuments Board —and asked for his opinion. His reply is of importance to the House. He said first that it was a matter of undershooting targets. He said that there was not enough money in the faculty of arts to do what it wanted to do. It


is wrong for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) to think that such people are insensitive to the situation. They are highly sensitive.
What calculation has been made of the employer's costs? It is an expensive post. The agreed words between Professor Fernie and anybody who cared to listen were:
If Parliament directs the university of Edinburgh to fill the chair of Scottish studies, then it should permit the university to undershoot staff savings targets by the equivalent of one post.
Are the Government prepared to make any special dispensation? I suspect that they are not, and that therefore it would be right to press the new clause to a vote, for the reasons given by hon. Members from all parties.
7 pm
The vital question is, what is the understanding of the Scottish Office about the endowment element in that chair? Again, it is important to put on record the fact that the present incumbent, Professor Barrow—not wishing to make controversial statements—simply said that, if the chair was suspended, there would be harmful discontinuity to studies. Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South rightly says about other chairs, I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and other hon. Members that Scottish history is a uniquely important chair to the university of Edinburgh. Others can have chairs in molecular parasitology and astronomy, but the chair of Scottish history in the Scottish capital is surely of considerable importance.
I defend the vice-chancellor and others, who have come under some criticism. We have kept the Polygon—the only university press in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South knows, it has done many good things.
The Minister quoted the vice-chancellor's letter in The Scotsman. I shall quote another part of that same letter. Sir David Smith said:
Ring-fencing Scotland's higher education would not enhance that reputation or the health of our higher education institutions. It would, in fact, imply the loss of minority interest subjects, which might no longer be viable within an exclusively Scottish framework.
It would imperil the proportionately higher share of the UK's public higher education resources that has, so far, come to Scotland. It could well threaten Scotland's standing in research and it would also remove the resulting direct financial return to the Scottish economy, which has been valued conservatively at a figure of at least some £40 million annually.
Scotland's interests' are not always as simple as some would have us believe.
That is an important part of that letter.
Of course, it is not only the chair of Scottish history that matters; it is the vexed question of the Audubon books. Some of us think that, because of Audubon's special relationship with Edinburgh, that issue should be given some priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South rightly said, the matter must be put in context. It must be of some concern that the chair of astronomy is not filled—a chair most recently held by Malcolm Longair. It is a distinguished chair. Other chairs are not filled, such as African literature. We must remember what Edinburgh has done for Malawi and other parts of east and central Africa. It is a tragedy. Natural philosophy—the chair of Clerk Maxwell and Norman

Feather—is unoccupied, and that is also a tragedy. The chairs of Russian and of tropical animal health speak for themselves.
Although the matter must be seen in context, there is a special case for a chair of Scottish history. I ask the Minister to be clear when answering my question—does he view Scottish history as different from any other chair in the university of Edinburgh?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In view of some of the comments made about the new clause, it is appropriate for me to reply briefly to the debate. When we tabled the amendments, we thought that they were gentle amendments with which people could not possibly disagree. Some of the speeches, especially from Labour Members, were incredible. I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest, which was certainly not my intention. Anyone who read the two new clauses carefully would have clearly realised that we were only asking that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council should pay particular attention in its funding and its assessment of quality to the study of history, languages and the culture of Scotland, and ensure that appropriate funds and attention are devoted to certain areas of research. I should have thought that few people could disagree with such amendments.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We are voting for them.

Mrs. Ewing: That is difficult to believe in view of some of the speeches.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) appears to be out of touch with what the teaching of history actually involves. I assure him that learning history parrot fashion, date after date, has long since disappeared. Anyone who has been involved in the teaching of history, as I have, can assure him that the importance of the teaching of that subject lies in the development of analytical skills in youngsters, so that they can look at issues and problems and reach an objective conclusion.
The teaching of history, as of any other subject, should be accompanied by straightforward objectivity. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, as somebody who taught history with great objectivity, from time to time I was supervised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and he equally observed objectivity in the teaching of mathematics.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North appeared to think that the study of Scottish history would involve people in trying to imbue in Scottish youngsters a particular philosophy or approach to the political scene. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Gentleman does himself, his colleagues and the people of Scotland a great disservice by the remarks that he made tonight.
I say both to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South—[HON. MEMBERS: "North."] I am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). There seems to have been great difficulty with direction during the debate. Both hon. Members seem to be saying that an emphasis on Scottish history, culture or languages would imbue a sense of superiority and suggest that Scots were all good. I have never adhered to the philosophy
Here's tae us, Wha's like us?
Damn few—they're a'deid.
I recognise that there are people in Scotland who have exploited others—just as anywhere in the world there has


been exploitation. We are a party that strives hard to show that its argument is with the establishment, not with the people of England, so I regret those speeches.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) were mean-minded when they referred to the fact that the amendments specifically mentioned the chair of Scottish history at Edinburgh university. It was used as an example because it is a topical matter. People are talking about it at home and they want to know what will happen and what elected Members think.
I have represented education interests for many years —not just in this Parliament, but in previous Parliaments. I suggest that those hon. Members read some of my speeches, when I spoke clearly about the difficulties that all universities face—not just those in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—in developing chairs in various subjects and in research. I do not think that they do their case very much good by adopting such a petty attitude.
The Minister referred to a letter from Sir David Smith. It is true that no final decision about the chair of Scottish history has been reached, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who spoke of the fear that, if the chair were not filled immediately, there would be a continuous knock-on effect and it would remain vacant indefinitely. The debate has brought to light the strength of feeling on the subject, and I hope that that will influence the university authorities when they have to make a final decision. Ultimately, however, the Government have a responsibility to make their view known to the university.
I am sorry that the Minister felt that he could not support this very gentle measure, which does no more than emphasise the importance that Scots the length and breadth of our country—and firth of Scotland—attach to our culture, history and languages. As we have already engaged in a poetic exchange, and as the Burns season in Scotland is currently ending, may I quote the following:
Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet,
To think how mony counsels sweet,
How mony wise and sage advises
the Government from this Bench despises.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 261.

Division No. 70
[7.10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carr, Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Cohen, Harry


Bellotti, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joseph
Crowther, Stan


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Edwards, Huw
Meacher, Michael


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fraser, John
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Hara, Edward


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O' Neil, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hain, Peter
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Short, Clare


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Illsley, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Ingram, Adam
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Janner, Greville
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stephen, Nicol


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Strand, Gavin


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Turner, Dennis


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Vaz, Keith


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lewis, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Litherland, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Livingstone, Ken
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Livsey, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Winnick, David


McAllion, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Worthington, Tony


McCartney, Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Macdonald, Calum A.



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLeish, Henry
Mr. Dick Douglas and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Allason, Rupert
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Hannam, Sir John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Benyon, W.
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, Jerry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowis, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hill, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Irvine, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Irving, Sir Charles


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butcher, John
Jackson, Robert


Butler, Chris
Janman, Tim


Butterfill, John
Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kilfedder, James


Chapman, Sydney
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Churchill, Mr
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Couchman, James
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dykes, Hugh
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Malins, Humfrey


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gregory, Conal
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Needham, Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick





Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Summerson, Hugo


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shelton, Sir William
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

REPORTS ON THE WELFARE OF STUDENTS

'—.(1) The Secretary of State, following consultations with the boards of management of further education colleges, shall publish an annual report on the welfare of students in further education.
(2) The Secretary of State shall require the Higher Education Funding Council to publish an annual report on the welfare of students in higher education.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament both reports published as a result of this Section, together with a statement of any conclusions he may have drawn as a result of the reports:.—[Mr. Stephen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stephen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 61 and amendment No. 64, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end add—
'(6) the Secretary of State shall lay annually before Parliament a report giving such information as may be prescribed as to how he has implemented his duty under subsection (1) above, and in particular what provision has been made for persons over school age who have learning difficulties.'.

Mr. Stephen: If the Minister were in his place, I would make no apology to him for returning to the issue of


student welfare, not least because in Committee he showed that he did not understand the poverty and the pressures that face most students in Scotland.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure the provision of an annual report on the welfare of students in further education. We should be very happy if that report were to be submitted by the further education funding council, but as the Minister appears to be reluctant to set up that body the report would have to come from the Secretary of State. The new clause also requires the Higher Education Funding Council to publish an annual report on the welfare of students in higher education.
One can have the very best of universities, with excellent teaching, excellent courses and excellent facilities, but they will be next to useless if the students are hungry, homeless, cold and debt ridden. That assumes that students are there in the first place. I return to the point that many students are deterred from going to university if they know that they will be under severe financial pressure and that their parents will put pressure on them not to go to university or into further education but to try to take up work—in many cases at much too early a stage.
During the last decade or so, the financing of students has undergone enormous changes. The loans system, which is opposed by an overwhelming number of students in Scotland, has been introduced. Student entitlement to benefit has been removed. Moreover, student grants have been frozen. At a time of general economic recession, another factor causes immense hardship: the shortage of employment for students during vacation periods. Employment has in the past provided an important source of income for them. Many parents now talk about saving to send their children to university, but some parents cannot do that. The gate cannot, therefore, be opened to children from those families. That bias against poorer families is a great source of worry.
In real terms, student grants have declined dramatically over the last decade. The mandatory grant would have to be increased by over 24 per cent. if it were to be brought back to its 1978–79 level and by 31·6 per cent. if it were to reflect the equivalent increases in the cost of living over the same period. Many students were caused immense additional hardship by the introduction of the poll tax and the still existing requirement—whose abolition should be announced as soon as possible, but no later than the next Budget—to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
A recent National Union of Students survey shows how many students find themselves in debt. In the case of those sampled, more than 50 per cent. had significant debt problems. That was even before the introduction of student loans. The problem may be that the Government take the same view of student unions and their surveys as they take of other trade unions. Although they appear to be disinterested, dismissive and hostile towards the NUS and other unions, I ask them to care about the plight of students. It is a very real problem.
We believe that the colleges and funding councils should provide independent, authoritative reports on the welfare of our students so that Ministers will be forced to listen. The areas of concern, where effective independent

monitoring is required, include housing costs, the availability of accommodation—a real problem—and general financial support.
Students are faced with particularly high prices in places such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh. In recent months and years, prices in Aberdeen have markedly increased. The costs of student accommodation there are quite prohibitive. Demand is high but accommodation is not available. Students are competing on the market with not only other students but oil workers in a very buoyant Aberdeen economy.
7.30 pm
A similar situation now exists in Edinburgh where house prices are generally high compared with those in other parts of Scotland. For example, at Aberdeen university only first year students from outside the area are guaranteed accommodation. The situation is even worse at the Robert Gordon Institute of Technology which at present can provide only 16 per cent. of its students with accommodation.
In Scotland as a whole, only 44 per cent. of university students are provided with accommodation. Students in my constituency have been forced to be accommodated in local hotels. Others in the Aberdeen area have been living in tented accommodation. In some areas they have had to live in senior common rooms and university halls, provided with only a bed, a locker and a screen.
Inevitably the council tax will also hit some students severely. Certainly it is a property tax, but it still has some elements of the poll tax, a hangover from the poll tax system. I am convinced that in certain circumstances the cost of the new council tax will be passed on to students. Even if the Minister does not realise this from our deliberations in Committee, it still seems likely that many landlords and landladies will pass on to students in student accommodation the personal element of the new council tax.
In addition to covering housing needs, I hope that the annual reports will pay particular attention to the students most in need. Many mature students face extra financial burdens. Some students have parents on low incomes, some students are ill, have disabilities or have responsibilities for caring.
Despite what the Minister said, there remains concern about the level of and uncertainty over the future management of the access funds which the current Universities Funding Council distributes to each institution. While the future of access funds remains undecided and while the lessons from the high cost of distributing them remain unlearnt, the Minister cannot state that there are no problems of hardship merely because of the existence of the funds. Great hardship exists.
New clause 3 would allow the Government to assess the welfare of students on an annual basis. If the Minister were to argue that student welfare is adequate at present—I find it very difficult to believe that he could argue that on an objective assessment—the report from the Higher Education Funding Council could substantiate his argument. We are seeking independent objective advice that would, I believe, be of considerable assistance to the Minister and to the Scottish Office in the fulfilment of their responsibilities to our students. That is the purpose of the new clause.


The Secretary of State has often talked about funding. Liberal Democrats are committed to funding the whole education system and, in particular, our higher and further education systems. We would be prepared, if necessary, to put 1p on income tax to make the changes. We would guarantee all students access to a minimum income and give them access to the benefits that they now so sorely miss. The Liberal Democrats have a deep commitment to that issue which is sadly lacking from the Government.
The Minister argued in Committee about the increases in access which he has provided—I almost said "increases in expenditure". In many areas he expected increased access to occur without increased funding. However, I appreciate that he is striving to increase access to higher and further education among young people in Scotland. There is a long way to go and it should not be paid for at the cost of hacking at the grants made available to students, which seemed to be the logic of his argument in Committee.
We need a well-funded higher education system and a well-funded further education system, but we also need adequate provision through grants and a minimum income to all our young people.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I had expected the Minister to move amendment No. 61. I wonder whether he wants to intervene to say whether that is his intention.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to move any amendments. They are debated, the new clause having been moved.

Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am aware of that. May I explain that my colleagues and I tabled the new clause because of the Minister's undertakings in Committee. We want to be especially sure that the Government have not changed their policy in the past two or three minutes, perhaps because of the debate that we have just had. On the assumption that the Government are—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps it would be more convenient if I explained. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind in the past few minutes. Undertakings given in Committee will be fulfilled.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience but I am sure that you will understand that we couthie Scots want to be absolutely sure before we accept offers which are not concrete. However, the Minister has now assured the House that he will support amendment No. 61.
We welcome that because it is consistent and compatible with amendment No. 64 which arose from our discussions in Committee. We thought that there should be a recognition of the needs, difficulties and rights of people with disabilities and special needs and, most importantly, that reports should be made to the House.
Some hon. Members might think that I have been too kind to the Minister this afternoon perhaps because I am in the unusual position of having won not one but two concessions. Perhaps I should restore normality to our relationship across the Floor. First, the Minister should note the fact that our new clause deals with this House, the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, I think that he got it wrong earlier. He was perhaps a little carried away with the atmosphere. If he reads his words, he will find that he was wrong in the debate about Scottish history and the

Daily Record. The Daily Record has supported the Westminster Parliament but has exercised its devolved journalistic powers to support a Scottish Parliament in Scotland, so there has been no change in the position that it has held for some time. It has remained perfectly consistent.
Although I welcome the reports suggested in the new clause—and those suggested in new clause 3 which the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) commended to the House—I must say in the spirit of our discussions this afternoon that we have made it absolutely plain that we are discussing the Bill presented by the Government. We have made it clear that we are not in favour of taking colleges of education away from local Government. Despite all the debates, the hours we spent in Committee—I was very pleased to serve on the Committee—and the debates on the Floor of the House, we have made it clear that the salient fact about Government policy on these matters is that announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment. He made it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government are trying to rescue themselves from the mess they were in because of the poll tax by taking colleges of education away from local government. That is also to apply to Scotland and, by that method, the Government are hoping that their cosmetic approach will succeed.
In view of the fact that the changes have very little educational content, I believe that very few people will support the proposal from an education point of view. The Minister must know that there is precious little support for his proposals. Precisely because the Government seem to be steamrollering the Bill through in the hope of getting Royal Assent before the election, and thus of taking the colleges of education away from local government, it is all the more important that reports should be made to the House, as the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, and as our amendment No. 64 seeks to ensure.
That is our view for the time being. It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the rest of the House, that we believe that in the not-too-distant future such important aspects of Scottish education as Scottish students, Scottish students with disabilities, and Scottish students with learning difficulties will be matters for a Scottish Parliament. Then we shall not have the sort of rushed debate that we are having today on such important issues.
As we are having the debate, and as the Minister—on these issues, at any rate—appears benevolent, I hope that he can give the House an assurance, as he did when we were discussing what would happen when the Government issued circulars about the implementation of their proposals. The people who will be appointed to the boards will be largely business people, with no specific relevant experience—few of them ever come into contact with students, or with people with learning difficulties. Will the Minister assure the House that when he deals with the boards he will consult Scottish care in the community groups before issuing circulars or deciding on full implementation of the provision?
You will be quick to correct me, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stray too far from the subject, but the Minister is aware—he wrote to me on the subject—that our procedures do not allow us to stray too far towards the subject of community care. However, as Sir Roy Griffiths


observed in his report, there cannot be complete community care unless education is included as an important aspect of it.
How can it be otherwise, when so many of our young people are blind or deaf—some are blind and deaf—or otherwise physically disabled? The Spastics Society is very interested in this issue. Such young people, and their families and carers, want real fulfilment to be possible. We want to see those people reach their full potential, and education is very much part of that achievement. That is why there are so many 19-plus groups all over the country.
Further education is relevant here. Many such people have passed the age of 19, and at that stage, unless proper assessments are made, unless Parliament is fully aware of what is taking place, as amendment No. 64 advocates, there can be enormous difficulties.
We all know families in which young people have been attending ordinary schools—some might say, special schools—and then suddenly, when they are 19, their whole world changes. That may happen because proper assessments have not been made, or because services are not available. Adult training centres do not exist in every part of the country. Such families find that their whole world has changed, and that young people who have gone each day to special schools, or whatever, suddenly find that nothing is happening. Parents and carers have an immense problem—we must approach the subject with great humility. They must ensure that their youngsters are occupied 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That cannot be done unless we accept that colleges of education can offer hope, potential and fulfilment to such young people.
That will mean courses—perhaps courses in the use of computers. In many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) will confirm, it already does mean that. It could—and does—mean courses in horticulture, hairdressing, and in developing sign language, and so on. Furthermore, able-bodied students could enrich their own lives by becoming involved in such courses, and thus offering recognition to people with learning difficulties—offering an acceptance that they, too, are part of our modern society.
For those reasons, I commend amendment No. 64 to the Minister. As I have said, it is consistent with Government amendment No. 61, and with the arguments advanced in Committee. In fairness, I must add that it is also consistent with what the Minister has said. He has considered the matter and brought provisions before the House. I hope that there will be agreement, and that the annual reports will not be seen as a token acceptance. We want an Act which—in the interests not only of education but of every person, every fellow citizen, who has the right to participate in education—actively considers the serious problems involved.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that Mr. Speaker selected the amendments and judged that they were fit for inclusion in the debate. As is my wont on this Report stage, I shall content myself with a question to the Minister. Do he and his advisers know what the drop-out rates are for Scottish universities? I was taken aback by a recent paper requested

by Dr. David Ingram and myself—we are two lay members of the biological sciences advisory committee of Edinburgh university.
The paper was produced by Professor Dale and his colleagues. I shall not regurgitate the figures. They are very sensitive, and I do not want to shout them abroad. Anyhow, they are not my figures. I should simply like to establish clearly that the Scottish Office knows what the drop-out rate is. That rate has a great deal to do with the financial situation of students.
Like many other hon. Members, I have close connections with students, and all the information that I receive suggests that there is real and mounting poverty among them. Poverty often forces students to withdraw from courses. If Professor Dale's paper and the other evidence is correct, and can be generalised, the situation is serious not only in terms of hardship, human distress and tragedy, but in terms of value for money. It does not make sense to have young people embarking on courses and then dropping out because of the lack of relatively small sums to tide them through. Does the Scottish Office know what the position is ?

Mr. Worthington: No.

Mr. Dalyell: I rather hope that it does, and I suspect that it does, but I should like confirmation of the fact, and to hear any comment that the Minister is prepared to make on the subject.

Dr. Godman: I was not on the Committee. For my sins or otherwise, I was not chosen to serve on it, but I should like to say something about amendment No. 64. It would strengthen clause 1, which admirably aims, among other things, to make better further education provision for people with disabilities of various kinds. As the employment service is seeking to provide more job opportunities for people with disabilities—that is precisely what is happening right now—it is essential that we improve the education and training of our fellow citizens so that they are better able to present themselves for the few job opportunities open to them.
On Friday, I shall be speaking at a function organised by the local jobcentre, with a view to publicising locally the new service that the Department of Employment has put together to meet the need to impress upon employers their moral responsibility to employ people with disabilities. I was very happy to accept the invitation because, in my constituency, a quite remarkable relationship has developed between the local further education college—the James Watt college—and the Fitzgerald adult training centre, a centre designed primarily to train people with a handicap—in this case, people who are mentally handicapped in some way.
We have a responsibility, through our further education colleges, to provide education and training courses for people who are physically handicapped and for those citizens who are mentally handicapped. Many jobs in all kinds of industries can be adequately filled by people with disabilities, provided that the trainees are given the right kind of education and training both within that occupation and before they take it up. The Minister has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that colleges of further education provide those training and education opportunities for youngsters with disabilities. I shall never forget meeting a young constituent last year. That young man was confined to a wheelchair. He was given a


job—albeit a temporary job—and had to start work at eight o'clock in the morning. His parents told me that, although his place of work was only five minutes away, the lad was ready to leave before six o'clock, so excited was he to he given any kind of job opportunity. There are many thousands more like that young man—who, unfortunately, is unemployed again—who could benefit from education and training courses provided by local colleges.
My constituency is very fortunate because of the relationship between the James Watt college and the Fitzgerald centre, and the devolved training centre in Port Glasgow, but much more needs to be done, and the new clause would enable us to determine, for a start, the extent of the education and training problem that we have. It would also help us to determine more precisely and analytically the education and training needs of people with disabilities. I welcome the new clause and hope that it is accepted.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Let me start by saying something about new clause 3. I remind the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) that I made it clear, in response to the amendments that he tabled in Committee, that a clear distinction had to be made between student support and institutional funding. Support for higher education institutions is, and will remain, the responsibility of the appropriate Secretary of State. The funding of higher education will be the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council.
Those two activities are quite separate and should not be confused. In addition, student welfare is primarily a matter for the institutions themselves. It embraces a variety of functions, including counselling and the disbursing of access funds. The current activities of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in distributing the funds to institutions is purely a matter of administrative convenience and does not imply any substantive responsibility for welfare matters. It is therefore illogical to propose that the funding council should produce a report on a matter for which it has no responsibility.
Support for non-advanced further education students is provided by bursaries from education authorities. I am still reviewing the future of the arrangements. In addition boards of management of FE colleges have powers in clause 8 to provide students of their college with such assistance of a financial or other nature as they consider appropriate.
The arrangements that are available for student support for further and higher education students are fair. They reflect a balance between support from the taxpayer and the contribution that an individual and his or her family makes. Student demand for places is buoyant. This does not suggest that the arrangements are unsatisfactory.
As either producing a report on the welfare of further education students or requiring the funding council to publish one on the welfare of higher education students makes no sense, it follows that laying the reports before Parliament would make no sense either.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was kind enough to suggest that the Scottish Office might have some information which his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) thought it almost certainly would not have. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. We have known for some time—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow is right to

draw attention to it—that, on the face of it, non-completion rates at Scottish universities are comparatively high. For that reason, the Government have commissioned substantial research into the matter, which will take the form of statistical analysis of the available data to draw general conclusions about the extent, nature and possible causes of the problem, together with an in-depth examination of individual case histories to identify the facts at play and current examples of good and bad practice. Until the results of those research exercises have been assessed, it would be premature to assign any particular cause, such as financial difficulties, to non-completion rates.

Mr. Dalyell: When will the research be completed? Do we know?

Mr. Forsyth: If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I can give him an answer as quickly as conclusions can be drawn from the work that is being done. I shall certainly look into the matter, and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about it. Some of the proposals for changes in the secondary schools reflect anxiety about this very matter.
Amendment No. 61 meets an undertaking given to the Committee to emphasise the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for the exercise of his duties for further education in part I of the Bill. I am confident that the annual report will show that the colleges of further education will flourish as never before with their new freedoms. It will also provide a means to allow the Secretary of State to show how he is meeting his important duty to have regard to requirements of persons over school age with learning difficulties. As on so many occasions, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Monklands, East—

Mr. Tom Clarke: West.

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made it clear that he does not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on some matters when he intervened earlier. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that—

Mr. Clarke: For the sake of the record, let me make it clear that I have a remarkably good working relationship with my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a very generous man, as the Minister will find in a few months' time.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure that, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East reads what the hon. Gentleman had to say in distancing himself from the view that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed about containing public expenditure promises, the relationship will be as strong as it was before. The hon. Gentleman may have put a little pressure on it this evening.
Amendment No. 61 fulfils the undertaking that was given in Committee. Therefore, I suggest that amendment No. 64 is unnecessary because it is already covered by amendment No. 61. I draw the attention of the House to clause 21 and to the Secretary of State's power by order to require the boards of management to publish information. Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29 highlight the learning difficulties aspect.

8 pm

Mr. Stephen: The Minister has made my point—not resisted it. The impact of student welfare on education should be and is the responsibility of the Scottish Office. Who monitors student welfare and its impact on the completion of courses? The Minister explained that the Scottish Office is currently looking into the matter. Presumably it will consider whether financial implications are one of the reasons for the high number of drop-outs from Scottish institutions. Although I repeat that this matter should be and is the concern of the Scottish Office and its education department, all we have seen from the Minister is a lack of concern for student welfare or a fear of what might be found if the Higher Education Funding Council was required to produce such an annual report.
I know that training is important to the Government, but we cannot treat our young people simply as if they were the feedstock of industry. One does not get the best performance from an individual if one simply trains that person; one must also treat people well. The Government, however, have neglected that important aspect of our education system and, as a result, the Conservative party is treated dismissively by many students in Scotland. I know that the Minister visits universities and other institutions from time to time, and I can assure him that that neglect is one reason for the hostile reception that he receives from a significant number of students in Scotland.
The new clause is crucial to the future quality of education in Scotland, as well as to student welfare. Sadly, I cannot accept the Minister's assurance.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 235.

Division No. 71]
[8.1 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Armstrong, Hilary
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beggs, Roy
Hood, Jimmy


Bellotti, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Benton, Joseph
Howells, Geraint


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Carr, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cartwright, John
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livsey, Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Douglas, Dick
McAllion, John


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Enright, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fearn, Ronald
McLeish, Henry


Fisher, Mark
Maclennan, Robert


Flannery, Martin
McMaster, Gordon


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stephen, Nicol


Michael, Alun
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trimble, David


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Hara, Edward
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. James Wallace.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Allason, Rupert
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Amos, Alan
Franks, Cecil


Arbuthnot, James
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardiner, Sir George


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian






Latham, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Redwood, John
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 14

QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF INSTITUTIONS WITHOUT DEGREE-AWARDING POWERS

—The Council shall secure that provision is made for assessing the quality of education provided in institutions without degree-awarding powers by maintaining—

(a) Control system for credit rating courses and training;
(b) A national access courses recognition scheme; and
(c) A service for C.N.A.A. graduates and employees to verify awards, replace certificates and provide related information.'.—[Mr. Ernie Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has just left the Chamber to have a cup of tea. His absence should not be taken as a lack of interest in the new clause on his part. He invited me to come forward to the Front Bench, but I think that that gesture would he to exaggerate. I have never had a need to stand leaning on a box, so I shall stay where I am. That is not meant to show disrespect to the Minister or the Secretary of State.
We thought it important in Committee to discuss the decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Education and Science, to end the function of the Council for National Academic Awards. It was incorporated in 1965 and has played a significant role in helping to develop within the polytechnics and centrally funded institutions in Scotland a type of education similar to the provision found in all our universities. Its mission has been directed more towards industry than pure research. We are worried about the ending of its role and want to know what the Scottish Office believes should fill the vacuum.
8.15 pm
In Committee, we discussed quality assessment, but we did not get round to discussing pages 26 and 27 of the Government's White Paper, "Higher Education: A New Framework", which refers to the need for a quality audit. What provision will be made to ensure that there is an organisation with responsibility
for assessing the quality of education provided in institutions without degree-awarding powers by maintaining—

(a) Control system for credit rating courses and training;
(b) A national access courses recognition scheme; and
(c) A service for CNAA graduates and employees to verify awards."?


We raise the matter to find out what the Minister thinks about this and to express some of the CNAA's concerns which we could not discuss in Committee. I know that our colleagues will discuss this on the Floor of the House when the Bill that applies to England and Wales returns from the other place.
I should like to depict the specific relation that the CNAA has had in developing the central institutions in Scotland. That is important because they have developed similarly to, but differently from, those in England and Wales.
It should be noted that there has never been a formal polytechnic sector of higher education in Scotland. For 20 years, from the inception in England and Wales in the late 1960s of a polytechnic system involving the amalgamation of colleges of art, commerce, education and technology to form large institutions, the Scottish Office Education Department prohibited the introduction of a similar system in Scotland, and instead insisted on a distinctively Scottish arrangement. That has resulted in the present family of 17 centrally funded colleges, comprising 12 central institutions and five colleges of education.
Those centrally funded colleges, which have been under central Government control for many decades, have been shaped by SOED policies and practices. A result is that they are generally much smaller than polytechnics in England, partly because of the absence of mergers, partly because SOED has limited the fields in which they have been allowed to operate and partly because they have not


been permitted to make provision for the humanities in the courses that they offer. In that sense, there were no polytechnics in Scotland.
For two decades, it has seemed to central institutions that the Scottish Office was not minded to encourage them to gain the polytechnic title. About three years ago, there was a sudden change of stance. The SOED acceded to a request from Napier college to call itself Napier polytechnic of Edinburgh, and some time later it approved a similar application from Glasgow college. There does not seem to have been any rhyme or reason to that. Certainly there was no major debate in this House beforehand. Up until then, the SOED had driven the centrally funded institutions in a particular direction.
Within the system, the centrally funded colleges are divided into sub-sectors, each of which comprises institutions having cognate interests—the art schools, the colleges of education and the technological institutions. Those groupings have evolved in different ways, and they differ greatly in size. The five technological central institutions—Dundee institute of technology, Glasgow polytechnic, Napier polytechnic of Edinburgh, Paisley college and the Robert Gordon institute of technology—have become the closest analogues to the polytechnics south of the border.
Their origins and missions are similar to those of the polytechnics. They have a similar concentration on vocational higher education—it is even more pronounced in the Scottish institutions—and they all have similar links with industry, commerce and the professions. They make similar provision for many levels of study, ranging from certificates to higher degrees. They offer extensive programmes of applied research and provide consultancy services. In common with the polytechnics south of the border, those colleges are also responsible for managing their own financial, administrative and legal affairs.
Those characteristics are shared, to a varying extent, by the other sub-sectors into which the centrally funded colleges are divided. However, the technological central institutions have additional features that are not found in the other centrally funded colleges. For that reason, they are more like polytechnics, because those technological central institutions provide for a wide range of disciplines and have substantial programmes of applied research. They are the largest centrally funded colleges and together account for more than half the total students in the Scottish centrally funded sector.
At the moment, those institutions are accredited by the CNAA. In addition, their close affinity with the polytechnics is reflected in the fact that their principals are full members of the Committee of the Directors of Polytechnics.
I have outlined the way in which the centrally funded institutions, in particular the five technological ones, operated until the Bill was introduced. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has given directions that the five technological institutions will have full degree-awarding powers. He has also said that four of them will be allowed to take the title of university. The one technological institution outside that grouping is the Dundee institute of technology.
In Committee, I discussed with the Minister what would happen to the Dundee institute of technology once the CNAA no longer existed. I wanted to know to which club that institute would belong. It is not a university, but

it has full degree-awarding powers and, obviously, it would want to market itself in those terms. That institution needs to be part of a club to which it can relate.
In the past all the technological institutions could relate to the CNAA. If a person who had been awarded a degree at one of those central technological institutions wanted to prove where that degree was lodged and recorded, the CNAA was able to assure existing employers, future employers and others in industry that that person's degree had the proper accreditation.
The mission of those central technological institutions was specifically directed towards industry. That was reflected in the make up of those institutions' boards of governors. Their courses were also assessed by a much wider grouping than that which assesses a university's degrees. The CNAA is concerned about the proposed changes and we want to know from the Minister whether he has thought them through.
As I understand it, some central institutions in Scotland will still be regarded as designated institutions, and their degrees will have to be accredited either by former central institutions that now have the title of university, or by one of the existing universities. If those institutions seek to meet the criteria laid down by the Government for the award of university title, there will be no drive and determination to do so, because the CNAA will no longer exist. Therefore, there will be no body to which those institutions can relate other than the institute with which they have an association for the accreditation of their degrees.
I know that discussions have taken place between ministerial officials and the Dundee institute of technology. We should like to know whether that dialogue has achieved any progress, or whether we are still where we were prior to the 29 January discussions. It is important to know the answer, if only because the board of governors of Dundee institute of technology, its previous students and those now engaged in academic study there want to know what status will be attached to the institution that will award or has awarded their degrees. To which club, or organisation, will that institute be able to attach itself'? Will there be a central institution in England and Wales which has a similar role to that of the institute—an ability to award degrees without the title of university?
It is unfortunate that we did not debate in great depth the content of the quality audit section of "Higher Education: A New Framework", because concern is felt by many, not just the Dundee institute of technology. For example, the director of the Glasgow school of art, Dugald Cameron, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie:
Glasgow School of Art is an associated institution within CNAA and its students in Art and Design are currently registered for degrees validated by this body. With the effective ending of CNAA in September 1992 what is the position of the bulk of students who, properly enrolled by GSA, had expected to graduate with CNAA degrees after that body's dissolution? … It seems rather odd that the 27 years experience of quality assessment which the CNAA possess should be airily dismissed in favour of what may seem to be, at best, rather 'ad hoc' arrangements.
What are those ad hoc arrangements? Given that we were unable to discuss the quality audit section within "Higher Education: A New Framework", it is important to learn from the Minister how he believes that quality audit will he established.
From paragraphs 67, 68 and 69 of the document, it appears that the general intention is to establish a quality audit section for England and Wales. However, there appears to be no intention to establish a separate quality audit unit for Scotland. One assumes that there will be a separate quality assessment unit for Scotland, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us if there will be a separate quality unit for Scotland. I appreciate that we are talking not just about former central institutions, but about universities and the new designated institutions that will have the title of university.
Paragraph 69 states:
The Government will discuss with representatives of the institution the nature and development of such a quality audit unit. It will expect the unit's steering council to have industrial and professional as well as academic members and to admit assessors from the Funding Councils to its meetings.
We must know what the make-up of that quality audit unit will be, especially with regard to the technological institutions that existed previously.
Paragraph 70 states:
The Government intends to include reserve powers in the legislation to ensure the satisfactory establishment of the unit.
Will that unit be in place by September 1992? The Minister of State seems to be nodding his head—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: If the Minister is not nodding his head, the question is relevant. If the unit will not be in place by September 1992, will the CNAA have a life beyond September 1992? Those institutions need an assurance about that.
The Minister should respond to that question to satisfy not only the present members of the CNAA but those institutions that have been associated with it and students who, over the years, have gained their degrees from it. Will there be an after-care service for CNAA graduates? The archive records of some 790,000 students must be looked after. Will resources be provided for that? Exactly what will happen? 
It was with those questions in mind that I tabled the new clause. I hope that it will not be necessary to push it to a vote, but that the Minister will satisfy all those concerned about the matter. I look forward to his response.

Mr. Douglas: I support the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on that issue, and I declare a long-standing interest. I was involved, in the Dundee college of technology, in bringing the CNAA into the department of commerce and economics at the university. That must be 25 or 30 years ago. I have corresponded with the Minister on that matter. The points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West require specific answers.
To use the analogy of what happened when previous central institutions became universities, when the Scottish college of commerce and the Royal college of science and technology were merged to become the university of Strathclyde, the university offered students associated with either of those institutions an option of becoming graduates of the university. Instead of associateships with commerce or economics, they could obtain a BA. I hope that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point about

bringing students into an on-going institution in terms of its archives and records of academic credentials for the future.
I am not as conversant with the matter as I might be, but I understand that the CNAA will disappear and that Dundee college will not become a university. If so, what happens to the quality assessment of its degrees? The Secretary of State cannot divest himself of responsibility. The college in Dundee was, so far as I can remember, the first in Scotland to make arrangements with the CNAA.
I speak only from a commerce and economics point of view, but I remember that the CNAA was stringent in terms of external examinations—and rightly so—before it gave its imprimatur to the lecturing in the college of technology. The Minister cannot leave Dundee college in suspended animation. He has some responsibility not just to the students who have gone there, which is an important factor, but to those who might want to go there because of its good reputation in commerce, engineering and other spheres.
The Minister cannot dodge answering the questions raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West. Students who enter such an institution will be uncertain how industrialists and commercial enterprises will view their degrees. Will the Minister clear up the matter and try to set it at rest?

Mr. Watson: I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). We require answers on the issue because it was not discussed in Committee. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clear up a number of outstanding questions asked by previous speakers.
The Bill for England and Wales provides for the dissolution of the CNAA but the Bill under discussion does not mention it. The CNAA's tentacles stretch deeply into Scottish education and the knock-on effect is, therefore, obvious.
The quality assessment committees to be established by both Bills provide for quality assurances once the new universities have the right to award degrees, but a considerable gap remains to be filled and I hope that the Minister will go some way towards filling it this evening. What will happen when the Council for National Academic Awards is wound up later this year? That organisation has welcomed the proposals and the reforms contained in them but has expressed many anxieties. It has cautioned against the speed with which the Bill is being introduced, and that has been echoed by Opposition Members during Second Reading and in Committee. That will create concern among existing students and those applying for courses beginning later this year.
When the CNAA is wound up, many of the 300,000 students, UK-wide—some 10 per cent. of whom are in Scotland—will be some way short of completing their courses. They will be left in what has been termed the no man's land between being part of an institution with degree-awarding powers and a CNAA accredited course.
The proposed arrangements fail to cater for students enrolled in institutions which will not be given degree-awarding powers and which have been unable to forge a link with a degree-awarding institution before the start of the new academic session later this year. Also left high and dry are what the CNAA describe as


the 500 research degree students registered by CNAA through non-educational establishments e.g. industrial, commercial or research laboratories and hospitals".
The CNAA has advocated that those students should be transferred to a national degree-awarding body such as the Open University. The Open University is ideally qualified to take on that role. The Labour party advocates that in the Bill on English and Welsh higher education. The suggestion is sensible and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about it. The Open University has the necessary expertise and range of courses. However, were it to take on that role, we would have to ask for what the Minister considers to be a dirty word-resources. It cannot be done without providing adequate resources. Many thousands of students deserve adequate accreditation for their courses and a clear idea of who will award their degrees. If that means additional resources, the Minister and the Government should face up to that throughout the United Kingdom.
It is estimated that there are about 40,000 students in the United Kingdom, a disproportionate number of whom attend Scottish institutions that will not receive degree-awarding status. Those students applied for and were accepted on courses to study for CNAA awards. They will now have no choice but to accept an award from whichever validating organisation the institution at which they are studying is able to find. That is a haphazard process—there is only a short time between now and September when the CNAA is to be wound up. Students applying for courses that start this autumn will enter a foggy area where there is no clear idea of what awards they can expect to gain, which is unsatisfactory and highlights the vacuum that will exist.
Attempts to find an academic partner to validate courses will be made more difficult by the unchallengeable fact that no existing degree-awarding institution has anything like the range of awards available through the CNAA, which relates to my remarks on the Open University. There is nothing like the spread of courses. Even our most esteemed academic institutions have nothing like the spread of courses that the CNAA offers.
What will happen to the institutions and students caught in that no man's land because the rules have been changed once the game is under way? That is not simply unfair, but unsettling for students and employers, who also need to know about the graduates who will be applying to them for posts during the next two years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West referred to an aftercare service, which will be of as much concern to employers as to students. The CNAA has brought together graduates and employers, but that role will disappear without any obvious replacement. The new clause provides a safety net to replace the ad hoc arrangements that appear to apply, at least in the intervening period. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions and be prepared to accept the new clause in the spirit in which it was intended so as to assist students, past and present, and the employers who hope to link up with them in the near future.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish to express my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and to recognise that the representations of Professor Edwards and his colleagues are valid.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The clause covers a number of important issues on which I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. First, I should emphasise that the Bill places an obligation on the new funding council to assess the quality of education provided in all institutions which it funds, whether or not they have degree-awarding powers. That assessment of quality will then be used to inform the funding provided by the council for teaching. All three territorial funding councils will undertake such quality assessment. In addition, there will be a quality audit unit run on a United Kingdom-wide basis by the institutions themselves. It may be helpful if I make the distinction between quality assessment and audit. Quality assessment will look at the quality of the teaching itself with a view to informing funding decisions. Quality audit will examine the quality control systems put in place by the institutions themselves to ensure that they are adequate.
The specific subject of credit rating for courses is an area where Scottish institutions can take some pride. The Scottish Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme—or SCOTCATS—involves all Scottish higher education institutions and covers courses from a higher national certificate to a full honours degree. I know that the institutions are very keen to continue that scheme and are looking at ways of doing so through the quality audit unit.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister mentioned quality assessment and quality audit—the two are quite different. If the Minister has said all that he intends to say, he has missed out on an important aspect. It was the mission of the technological institutions that was important within the quality audit. Their mission was technologically and industrially driven.

Mr. Forsyth: I was making the distinction between quality assessment and quality audit. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the Dundee institute of technology. His constituency interests mean that that institution is rightly at the forefront of his mind. However, the circumstances of that institute, on which we have corresponded, are not related to the new clause.
8.45 pm
Wider access to higher education is a vital part of our proposals. Last year, 9,400 mature students entered full-time higher education in Scotland. That is an increase of more than 80 per cent. since 1979. That reflects particularly well on the Scottish wider access programme which we introduced in 1988. It will continue unaffected by our higher education reforms.
New clause 14 raises the position of graduates and employees of the Council for National Academic Awards after its dissolution. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to pay tribute to the CNAA. Too often in the past, public sector bodies have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies. The CNAA has avoided that—indeed, it has—[Laughter]—made a remarkable—

Mr. Watson: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: May I just try to finish reading this sentence.
The CNAA has scored the remarkable achievement of working itself out of a job by bringing the present non-university higher education institutions to their present academic maturity. Arrangements are already in


hand for it to be wound down in an orderly way. We agree that there must be what might be called an after care service for its graduates and employees.

Mr. Watson: The brief is perhaps not the best that the Minister has been given.
The new clause contains an error which I had not noticed until now. The new clause contains a misprint. The Minister has twice mentioned the words that appear in the new clause "graduates and employees", but we are talking not about employees of CNAA, but about employers.
Paragraph (c) should refer to employers with whom the graduates want to link up. I apoloigise for that printing error which may have misled the Minister and may explain why he is uncharacteristically unsure.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that elucidation. I agree that we also need an after care service to help employers.
Some of the CNAA's present work will fall to the new quality audit unit. The Open University is currently working on detailed proposals to assume the function of maintaining CNAA records, particularly the academic records of graduates. The Open University already has great experience of that function through its present work.
Hon. Members will have seen that work is already in hand to address the issues to which new clause 14 refers. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to withdraw it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: With the leave of the House, may I say that we had some lighter moments in Committee, which usually occurred either when the Minister was not enjoying reading his brief or when the brief, for some reason, did not seem to fit in with what he was trying to say. Today we seem to have encountered that problem.
What we are trying to do is important. We are concerned about the mission of the central institutions. Their teaching mission has always been slightly different from that of universities, mainly because the Scottish Education Department deliberately did not allow them to diverge into the humanities but kept them on a narrow, industry-based system of teaching and degree awarding. We are concerned that the quality audit unit should be established quickly so that the new institutions, which will have university title, will not wander away and that we will retain in Scotland technology-based institutions.

Mr. Forsyth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I stuck too rigidly to my brief. He asked me about the importance of establishing the quality audit unit and when it would be in place. I share his concern about it. I expect that the audit unit will be in place by September of this year.

Mr. Ernie Ross: This brief debate has been important. Our colleagues in another place may want to return to the issue to clarify that we are all talking about the same thing. Given what the Minister has just said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15

INSPECTION

'The Secretary of State shall ensure that inspection is made from time to time by Her Majesty's Inspectors of provision for students with learning difficulties in Colleges of Further Education.'.—[Mrs. Margaret Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 63, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—
'(2A) In discharging his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall ensure that no student under the age of 25 who has learning difficulties shall be required to pay a fee for Further Education.'.
Amendment No. 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end add
'; and in exercising such power they shall have regard to the requirements of persons over school age who have learning difficulties.'.
Government amendments Nos. 16 and 21.
Amendment No. 67, in clause 8, page 5, line 24. leave out 'disabled students and staff' and insert
'students with learning difficulties and disabled staff.'.
Government amendments Nos. 22 and 28.
Amendment No. 68, in page 16, line 30, at end insert
'including the educational provision made or proposed to be made for persons with learning difficulties and the facilities made or proposed to be made to meet the needs of disabled students and staff.'.
Government amendments Nos. 83, 29 and 48.
Amendment No. 74, in schedule 1, page 40, line 31, at end insert—
'(1A) Where the number of students with learning difficulties at a College of Further Education exceeds such number as may be prescribed, the Board shall establish a Special Needs Advisory Committee, including persons with experience of the needs of students with learning difficulties.'.

Mrs. Ewing: Those of us who served in Committee will recall the debate on the inspection of courses offered at colleges of further education whereby the courses for youngsters with special learning needs or any disability would have to be inspected. The Minister undertook to consult the chief inspector about such matters as regularity of inspection.
The new clause focuses on special needs in colleges, a subject which was not debated in Committee, when the debate was about inspection in general. There is some reason to be concerned that at present the inspection of special needs courses is less than adequate, in that it has been added to the remit of one or two inspectors who are already over-burdened. That is understandable. I am not trying to demean the work undertaken by inspectors; I am trying to draw attention to the fact that they are asked to take on an additional burden in a difficult job. I hope that consideration will be given to appointing others or ensuring that time is made available to them to undertake the training and qualifications necessary to execute this important task.
We are speaking against a background of the recent development of courses. Many of them have been established at the initiative of individual colleges or education authorities, or a combination of both.


Sometimes voluntary organisations have been involved. They have not been set up because of central Government policy.
I wish to ensure that, when further education colleges are devolved, as suggested in the Bill, the Scottish Office Education Department takes the same approach as it does to other areas of education. which is not just a monitoring role but one of spreading and promoting good policy, and presumably identifying the need for staff training purposes. I referred to that extensively in Committee, because I believe that many colleges throughout Scotland have set up substantial and effective programmes of education for people with special learning needs or specific handicaps.
It seems ridiculous that many colleges are trying to reinvent the wheel. Given the pressures on staff time and resources, including financial resources, it is an important aspect of the inspectorate's job to ensure that good practice, wherever it is encountered, is taken up by other colleges, with the recommendations of those who invented the courses. I hope that the Minister will take that seriously.
As was also brought out in Committee, the inspectorate is seen, generally speaking, as a positive and valued force. The whole tenor of the new clause is to ensure that that is in no way diminished by the changes proposed in the Bill. Students with learning difficulties, and staff working with them, will inevitably form a comparatively small part of any college. I refer the Minister to the statistics given in Committee. An inspectorate with a specialist but wide-ranging role will be able to assist in keeping them up to date with developments elsewhere. All of us would endorse that aim, because, as Members of Parliament or even in our families, we know of people with particular needs which should be recognised and given the respect which they require.
As well as new knowledge about such matters as educational techniques. new technologies are coming into existence to assist students with various types of handicap. An inspectorate could provide a valuable source of information and assistance, as well as ensuring the maintenance of standards.
I do not want to go through all the amendments which are being considered with the new clause, save to say that we are all striving for the same goal. Hon. Members on both sides have spoken at length and with great sincerity on previous occasions about their wish to see students with special needs given recognition. New clause 15, with the amendments, would bring about that wish. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us the good news that he will accept the new clause.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been most persuasive. Where there is a demand for positive discrimination, an inspectorate such as she described seems appropriate. I think that she made a good case. The Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped agrees with the new clause, and I hope that the Minister will address himself seriously to the points which have been made.
I should like to refer to amendments Nos. 63, 67, 68 and 74 which have been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. It will come as no surprise to the House and to my hon. Friends who served so well in Committee to learn that we

are dealing with the important point of access. We have been very much aware of the importance of access throughout our consideration of the Bill. In both further and higher education, we want to improve access for a much larger number of people than our education system has been able to deal with so far.
Earlier this evening, the Minister referred to the Scottish wider access programme. I hope that he will feel that these constructive amendments, which reflect our arguments in Committee, are not inconsistent with what we were told were the objectives of that programme, even though they may not yet have been achieved.
Amendment No. 63 is designed to provide for students with learning difficulties who require longer to complete their courses precisely because of their disabilities. I have been paying great attention to debates in another place and particularly to a debate on 14 January on the analogous English legislation. So far, the English Bill has focused much more clearly on this matter than we have managed with the Scottish one. If our colleagues dealing with English further education have managed to persuade themselves—rightly—that new bodies should seek adequate provision for the under-25s, there must also be a duty to provide free further education for people with disabilities and learning needs. That case is argued for in the amendment.
9 pm
The Government have given a commitment that students between 16 and 18 will not be required to pay fees for further education—a welcome reassurance. We seek to extend that to the world in which such students actually have to live. It is self-evident that students with learning difficulties are willing and able to learn but inevitably often do so more slowly. Students with cerebral palsy, for instance, have communication difficulties. The expectation that they should complete difficult courses despite their difficulties at the same pace as their fellow students seems both unreasonable and unrealistic. Many of these people continue to develop for several years after they reach the age of 18, and they would derive considerable benefit from completing a course of further education that students without disabilities would usually complete before 18.
Students with physical disabilities may also need to take longer over their courses. I witnessed the problems of physical access in my local college in Coatbridge last Friday. Despite an excellent determination to ensure that facilities are available there, the problems of physical access remain self-evident.
Disability sometimes means that students have to use special aids or techniques to carry out course work—not always an easy task, as we agreed in Committee. Computer aids can he excellent tools for disabled people, but they are often laborious to operate, especially for people who are physically disadvantaged. People with visual handicaps do not enjoy the easy access to written materials that sighted people enjoy. The Government must accept that these people need longer; they often cannot earn money, and they experience real poverty.
Many people with disabilities have associated health problems that may require them to take time off from a course of further education. All hon. Members have personal experience of such cases. Despite personal heroism by the sufferers, their health problems often mean that they have to break off for treatment or to recharge their batteries. No one should disregard that point.
It would be helpful if the Government told us their views on the bursary system. It is doubtful whether it provides the complete answer, although the Minister depended on it a great deal in Committee. Bursaries may vary across Scotland, and they provide no guarantee that the problem will be properly dealt with.
The Government have given us some welcome commitments about disabled students but it is most important for many disabled students to be sure that it is worth starting a course because they will be able to finish it in their own time. They cannot be expected to afford fees if they have been taking further education courses since leaving school.
Funding is certainly a complex issue, and the Government have a number of mechanisms for deciding whether fees are charged and whether they are paid by students. Rather than leaving this matter to the vagaries of the bursary system, with all its complexities, the Government should give disabled students a clear commitment: those who require longer to complete their courses will be able to do so.
Through amendments Nos. 67 and 68, we seek not only to tidy up the wording but to introduce some sophistication. Our view is shared by the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped and by people such as Hugh Stewart, Colin Mackay, Brian Lamb and Pauline Graham of the Spastics Society, who feel that our terminology in legislation should be brought up to date, especially remembering our links with Europe.
Amendment No. 74 seeks to ensure that the boards are properly advised about the needs of students with learning difficulties. Our argument here is absolutely consistent with the main thrust of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which accepted that people with disabilities had the right to have an input in policy formulation when decisions were taken which influenced the quality of their lives.
Although the duty of colleges to have regard for students with learning difficulties is welcome, it must be remembered that the colleges will be run largely by business people. I do not want to be too harsh on them, and we shall see what happens. However, it must be said that the quota system—

Mr. Ernie Ross: It is 3 per cent.

Mr. Clarke: The quota is 3 per cent., yet it has never been achieved. We seem to be asking the same people to accept that there should be positive discrimination within the college system, which has not been the case so far.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's point is significant. In industry, we have discovered that there has been a lot of pressure on individuals either not to label themselves as disabled or to say that they are disabled simply to try to help the employers in their minimum commitment to the 3 per cent. quota. Those same employers could be on the boards of governors and might adopt the same attitude, which would put on students the pressure which is put on employees in industry. That would not be acceptable.

Mr. Clarke: As always, my hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The boards, with the problems of cash limits and budgets, would not, on the evidence so far, see a commitment to people with special needs as a priority.
If we have not persuaded the Minister of our case for representation, it is important that at least he gives some

thought to the amendments. There is no guarantee that business people will know anything about the real needs of students with learning difficulties, which creates the danger that the boards will fulfil the responsibility to people with special needs in a token and ill-informed way. That is unacceptable, especially in view of the recent education review.
In Committee, as the Minister will recall, the Government rejected an amendment that the college boards should be required to include a person with suitable experience. The Minister argued that one person could not be expected to represent all the different types of student with learning difficulties. Even if that argument has merit, an alternative is that the whole board could be advised by a committee which would include disabled students and their representatives. That is a reasonable request.
During the debate on the Further and Higher Education Bill in the other place, the Government stated, as the Minister will be aware, that the new funding councils would be required to obtain specialist advice on the needs of disabled students as a condition of their grants. In Scotland, the lack of a similar funding council seems to place a greater responsibility on individual colleges. It is important, therefore, to ensure that any college that caters for a significant number of students with learning difficulties should have a source of specialist advice about the needs of those students. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. McMaster: I shall be as brief as possible. Although I support the case that has been put for new clause 15, I want to devote my remarks to the three amendments Nos. 63, 68 and 74. They deal with the three barriers to disabled people and those with learning difficulties entering further education—financial, physical and psychological. The amendments would help to break down those barriers.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monklands—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] If my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is not a right hon. Member, he should be. He said that we welcomed the Minister's commitment to not charging fees to people with learning difficulties aged between 16 and 18. I support amendment No. 63, which would extend that provision to the age of 25. By definition, people with learning difficulties have special reasons for being slower and having to work at their own speed with student-centred learning. Again by definition, disabled people are likely to be poorer because disablement costs money in all sorts of ways, not least in transport costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Oatridge agricultural college, which does valuable work in horticulture and agriculture. However, people have to travel to get there, and those costs have to be met by disabled people who come from a large catchment area.
The same applies in Glasgow. Woodburn house is part of Landside college, and its catchment area is practically the whole of Strathclyde region. People have to travel from a wide area to get there. Money should not be a barrier to disabled people and those with learning difficulties entering college. There is an untapped pool of talent among disabled people. It is not only a crime against those people not to tap into their talent; it is a crime against society.
There is another benefit from further education for disabled people, and that is the respite provided to their carers and families—[Interruption.] I am trying to be brief, but there are important points to be made.
On amendment No. 68, my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said that, under the new set-up, colleges will be run by business men. Business men and women have no great record in serving the needs of disabled people. The quota system was mentioned earlier. Only 24 per cent. of organisations in this country achieved the 3 per cent. quota, and Government Departments are not among them. The Scottish health service achieves only 0·2 per cent. and the House of Commons only 0·6 per cent. The Minister shakes his head, so I must tell him that those figures come from a parliamentary written answer from him. [Interruption.] The figures could be doubtful, of course.
Those who argue that in dealing with the learning needs of disabled people persuasion will work and that colleges will somehow serve them without any statutory obligation to do so should understand that all the evidence of legislation on the disabled shows that that is not the case. Where such legislation has been voluntary in its implementation, most have chosen not to implement it.
9.15 pm
If performance measurement systems are to be introduced, and if they are to be based purely on the quantity of students who come through the door rather than on the quality of training that they receive, the day on which those systems are introduced will be a sad one. Disablement resettlement officers, through no fault of theirs, have been measured according to the number of disabled people whom they help to enter employment; they are therefore naturally likely to go for people who have lost the tip of a pinkie in an industrial accident rather than the disabled people who need help most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, when introducing what became the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, that disabled people should not constantly be "done unto". That is what amendment No. 74 is all about. It is essential that a special needs advisory committee be set up: after all, if there are 6·5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, about 10 per cent.—roughly 650,000—will be in Scotland, and those people deserve to have their voices heard.
I do not think that there will be a shortage of people who could be called on to serve on an advisory body. There are, for instance, the voluntary bodies, which do such valuable work. A constituent of mine, who is also a friend—a girl called Morag Clunas, who has been disabled from birth—has fought a battle to get through the education system. She is now working for Renfrew district disability council, and is campaigning on behalf of other disabled people. She has seen the education battle from all sides, and was recently given an award by Commissioner Milian for her achievements.
We must emphasise ability rather than disability. If the Minister can come some of the way with us, he will be seen to be paying lip service, at least, to the education needs of disabled people—and we want more than that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on moving new clause 15. She concluded an earlier speech with a quotation from Burns. Like much that comes from her party, it was a misquotation: according to my memory of "Tam O'Shanter", the advice relayed by her national bard was given to a husband by his wife, not by an Opposition to a Government. Perhaps I may reciprocate by commending a quotation from Burns to the hon. Lady. In "The Dumfries Volunteers", Burns writes:

"Be Britain still to Britain true,
Among oursel's united!
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!"

The hon. Lady might care to memorise that quotation, and recite it to herself in the weeks and months to come.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to turn this into an entirely cultural debate, because serious issues are at stake. Does the Minister agree, however, that those words were written under duress, at a time of great difficulty for the bard? Perhaps he wrote more effectively when he spoke of
such a parcel o' rogues in a nation".

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady's analysis of the time when the piece was written. Another line may commend itself to her:
O let us not, like snarlinghe tykes,
In wrangling be divided".
In view of that, perhaps I should return to the subject of new clause 15, which would require the Secretary of State to ensure that Her Majesty's inspector of schools inspects provision in further education colleges for students with learning difficulties.
The Secretary of State already has power, under section 66 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to cause inspections to be made of any educational establishment. Those inspections are carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate. The provision of further education for students with learning difficulties is covered by the inspectorate, which will advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of his duty for further education, including the requirement to have regard to the needs of those with learning difficulties.
I shall be happy to give the hon. Lady an undertaking that I shall discuss with the senior chief inspector appropriate arrangements in that regard. As a first step to add to the Department's knowledge of the extent of the provision and existing good practice, it is intended to appoint soon, on secondment, an expert from a college to report on the matter.

Mrs. Ewing: Can the Minister tell me how many reports have been submitted from the inspectorate specifically on the needs of youngsters with special learning difficulties at further education colleges and what impact that has had on central Government thinking, in terms of planning? When the Minister has spoken to the inspectorate about the content of my new clause, which is supported by other hon. Members, will he consider introducing an amendment in the other place to take account of the genuine concerns of all of us on this side of the House, which have been endorsed by all the societies and organisations that work with handicapped people, be they mentally or physically handicapped?

Mr. Forsyth: After my discussions with the senior chief inspector, I shall ensure that the hon. Lady is provided


with that information. It is unnecessary to amend the Bill to ensure good practice by the inspectorate. They work very hard to ensure good practice. We discussed in Committee an amendment similar to amendment No. 63. I said then that I do not consider that there is a strong case for accepting the amendment. Students over 18 are able to apply for bursaries. The bursary scheme allows colleges to give special consideration to disabled students. In my view, these arrangements provide a sufficient safeguard for students with learning difficulties.
I was puzzled by what the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about the differences between England and Scotland. The position seems to me to be absolutely identical, so I was puzzled by the suggestion that he might want to elaborate on the point that he made in his speech.
In addition, boards have the power, in clause 8(2) (c)
to provide to students of the college such assistance of a financial or other nature as they may consider appropriate".
Government amendment No. 20 to clause 8, which I hope we shall discuss later, makes it clear that this includes the ability to waive or grant remission of fees. For students with or without learning difficulties, some boards may well exercise that power. Each case is likely to be very different. The boards will be best placed to make judgments rather than the blanket provision that the amendment would introduce.
As for amendment No. 58, 1 have no doubt that local authorities will take account of the needs of those with learning difficulties when judging when to use their powers to provide further education. The Bill is about the transfer of further education from local authority management and establishing boards of management. It is not about extending obligations on local authorities. They must decide how to exercise their functions within their duties and powers.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As this is a serious point, I want to be absolutely clear about where the Government stand. 1 referred to the discussions in another place on 14 January when clearly Government Ministers accepted that, if a funding council in England was unable to secure provision for such students, a duty was placed upon them to find places and to make sure that the cost was met. I am not aware, though I invite the Minister to clarify the point, of a similar provision having been included in the Bill. If there is such a provision, I hope that he will reassure me. It is important that he should answer my question.

Mr. Forsyth: I have no direct responsibility for the arrangements in England, but I am advised that there is no provision in England and Wales for students with learning difficulties between the ages of 18 and 25 not to be charged fees. The position in England and Wales, therefore, is identical to that in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, referring to an amendment that was accepted: that the funding council can secure provision for those with learning difficulties outside the further education sector. That is not required in Scotland, as there is no upper age limit on the Secretary of State's duties or on the bodies that he can fund, including organisations other than the boards. The position, therefore, is identical. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on that point?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot agree with the Minister that the position is identical. I realise that perhaps understandably he has not had as much time to consider the matter as he

would have wished. However, I spent a lot of time last night with Scottish and English organisations which work in this field and the one issue on which they all agreed was that the two positions are not identical.

Mr. Forsyth: That is probably right, but the positions are identical in terms of effect, although the reasons why they are identical may differ north and south of the border.

Mr. Clarke: So they are not identical?

Mr. Forsyth: From the point of view of a student with learning difficulties who is aged over 18 the position is identical, but the means by which that commonality has been achieved is different. I should have thought that people would not be specially concerned about the statutory basis on which that has been achieved.

Mr. Clarke: With respect, the Minister is uncharacteristically confused about the facts. He has not had time to get the facts together. He is wrong and, given that fact and the fact that he has not had time to do his homework, will he at the very least hold his hand until the Bill is dealt with in another place?

Mr. Forsyth: If I am wrong, it is because I have been advised in a way which is not in accordance with the advice to the hon. Gentleman. I think the advice that I am receiving from officials is perhaps more likely to be authoritative than that to the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to consider the point he has raised. However, he must not chide me for not being up to date on English legislation. The Bill is a Scottish Bill and the provisions in it—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will allow me to deal with the hon. Member for Monklands, West, I shall give way to him.
It seems that the arrangements being made in the Bill for students with learning difficulties are perfectly adequate. Existing powers provide for bursaries to be made available and that seems to be the best way of approaching the matter.

Mr. Douglas: I hope that the Minister can help me by clarifying this matter. Is he saying that he is resisting the new clause because the first of the powers sought is covered in other legislation? If so, what valid reason has he for not putting that aspect of the new clause into the Bill? Why can he not do that?

Mr. Forsyth: We do not as a matter of practice put into legislation that which we already have powers to secure. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the inspectorate inspected in further education colleges the provisions for students with learning difficulties. The means already exist whereby the Secretary of State can require those functions to be carried out, and I think it is an unfair attack on the inspectorate to suggest that it would not carry out those functions unless they were written into statute. The inspectorate is perfectly capable of assessing the provision for children and students with learning difficulties in schools and colleges of further education in Scotland.
I have already given the hon. Member for Moray an undertaking that I will discuss this issue with the chief


inspector and will ensure that the sentiments expressed in support of the new clause are dealt with. That is why it is not necessary to include this new clause in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 16, 21, 22, 28, 83, 29 and 48 fulfil—

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: May I just deal with the amendments and then I shall come back to the hon. Lady.
The amendments fulfil commitments that I gave in Committee to strengthen the provisions of the Bill which deal with students with learning difficulties. The Bill places a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements of persons over school age who have learning difficulties in exercising his duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of further education in Scotland. I regard that as an important new statutory safeguard.

Mrs. Fyfe: I hope that the Minister will not interpret our concerns as an attack on the inspectorate. We are expressing genuine concern. It may be helpful if I tell the Minister that I worked in FE in Glasgow for 11 years, and although inspectors came and gave my department good reports, I do not remember questions about the needs of disabled students ever being asked. I do not blame the inspectors. I am sure that they must have had a lot of pressures on them, and I am taking account of that. Nevertheless, my personal experience does not bear out the Minister's confidence in that respect. I am glad that he is undertaking to check with the chief inspector, but I hope that he will adopt a more helpful attitude to what Opposition Members are saying.

Mr. Forsyth: I take that as something of an attack on the local authority responsible for the administration of the colleges concerned. The hon. Lady must not misquote me in the way that the hon. Member for Moray misquoted Burns. I said that to suggest, as did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, that the only way of making sure our aim was achieved was to include a requirement in the Bill was something of an attack on the inspectorate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to put it in those terms. Perhaps we can agree that the principles that the hon. Member for Moray sought to uphold can be secured by the administrative means that I suggested.
Amendment No. 28 will ensure that, where the Secretary of State has made regulations under clause 21 requiring boards of management to publish information about the education provision made, or proposed to be made, for students of the college, that includes students with learning difficulties. I attach importance to appropriate provision being made in FE colleges for students with learning difficulties. I believe that requiring colleges to publish such information will be an important factor in maintaining quality and in concentrating minds on the provision made for those with learning difficulties.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State's power by regulations to require boards of management to publish information extends to such information as may be prescribed as to the facilities provided, or to be provided, for students with learning difficulties. Although it will be for each board of

management to decide what special facilities are appropriate for their students and staff, information on the facilities that each college provides should be freely available.
Other amendments are textual, or improve the drafting of the Bill.
I said that some of the points that we discussed in Committee would best be dealt with by guidance circulars. I am still of the view that those should also cover matters such as how boards might call on expert advice—through committees, with non-board members or otherwise.
I hope that the House will recognise that we have listened to the debate in Committee, and to the debate tonight, which has re-emphasised the same points. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Moray will feel able to withdraw her new clause and support the Government amendments.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has put the Opposition in a difficult position tonight. We would not have tabled the new clause had we felt that existing legislation was adequate. If the Minister says that existing education provision is adequate, why is he so afraid to write on the face of the Bill a simple new clause, which would take care not only of the anxieties of the hon. Members who have spoken, but of those of other organisations such as the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, which has asked that this simple straightforward new clause be incorporated in the Bill? 
The Minister's response to questions by my hon. Friends and myself, and by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who is also an expert on the subject, was wrong-footed. He could not tell us how many reports have been lodged on the specific issues that we have raised, and he said that he would forward information to us at an appropriate stage.
However, we all know that once the Bill leaves the Chamber tonight it will quickly go to another place, because the Government want it on the statute book before the general election. That gives no time whatever for the other place to consider in detail the issues that we have debated tonight, and the Minister has not given us a concrete reason for not pressing the clause to a vote.
Is the Minister prepared to give us a time scale in which he will join me and other interested Members in meeting the inspectorate to discuss the matter in detail and introduce an appropriate amendment in the other place? If not, I am afraid that we shall have to press the matter to a vote. I do not think that any of us really wants to do that, but we do want an assurance that our concerns for youngsters with learning difficulties in our colleges of education, and for the inspectorate, which has to deal with the problem, will be taken into consideration and all the positive arguments that I have advanced on behalf of the inspectorate—not against it, as the Minister tried to imply—will be met. We want some assurance right now or we shall press the clause. I give the Minister an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Clarke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker.
We are dealing with an extremely serious matter, on which the Minister failed to satisfy the House in his response. He said that he would be getting advice, and I fully understand that, but, as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, civil servants advise and Ministers decide. If the Minister is deciding simply to sweep the matter under the carpet, it is simply not acceptable.
The simple question is whether we accept that people over the age of 18 with disabilities find that, in the very nature of things, it takes longer for them to communicate and to follow particular courses, and that financial problems often result.
The Minister and I disagree on the debates in the other place and on the attitude to the English Bill. In the past few minutes, I have re-read the proceedings in the other place —I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not read them out —which confirm what I have said rather than what the Minister has said. Far from the hon. Gentleman's advice being accurate, local authorities already have discretion in some cases to decide whether to waive fees.
All we ask for Scotland is that the Minister should consider whether he can agree that, in the case of students up to the age of 25, no fee will be charged. The House had expected some concession from him. We have had none whatever, and unless he returns to the Dispatch Box with a much firmer undertaking, I shall certainly urge my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 248.

Division No. 72]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Alton, David
Galloway, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashton, Joe
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bellotti, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benton, Joseph
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carr, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Charles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livsey, Richard


Enright, Derek
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Loyden, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Fearn, Ronald
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McCartney, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Macdonald, Calum A.


Flynn, paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Derek
Maclennan, Robert





McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stephen, Nicol


Michael, Alun
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Hara, Edward
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Dick Douglas and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amos, Alan
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Dames Janet


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Benyon, W.
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Chris
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
 Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Christopher


Couchman, James
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heatcoat-Amory, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Davis David (Boothferry)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Day, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.






Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Raffan, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rost, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thorne, Neil


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Miller, Sir Hal
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Walden, George


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walker, Bill (T'Side North)


Moate, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, Sir John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Whitney, Ray


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Widdecombe, Ann


Needham, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wolfson, Mark


Norris, Steve
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Oppenheim, Phillip
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes;


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to new Clause 21.

Mr. Worthington: Not moved.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been a misunderstanding about new clause 21, which some of us wish to ask questions about.

Mr. Speaker: If the Front-Bench spokesman does not move it, it is not moved.

Mrs. Fyfe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) inadvertently withdrew new clause 21.

Mr. Worthington: It might have been a misunderstanding.

Mr. Speaker: It might have been, but, unhappily, we have moved on now. We cannot go back.

Clause 1

DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO SECURE PROVISION OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendment made: No. 61 in page 2, line 4, at end add—
'() The Secretary of State shall, as soon as is practicable after the end of each calendar year, prepare a report as to the discharge of his duties under this Part of this Act; and he shall lay a copy of each such report before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 6

FURTHER EDUCATION TO WHICH SECTION 1 APPLIES

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 4, line 9, leave out from 'difficulty' to end of line 10.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 11, at end insert—
'() is designed to assist persons whose first language is not English to achieve any level of competence in English language;'.
The amendment meets an undertaking given to the Committee. It will place within the Secretary of State's duty for further education a provision that is designed to assist those whose first language is not English and who need to improve their competency in English. This will be of particular benefit in meeting the needs of ethnic minorities and will enable them to play a full part in the economic and social life of our community.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 65, with which it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18, and 23 to 25.

Mr. Worthington: Amendment No. 65 is subsumed in later Government proposals. I therefore do not wish to move the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 4, line 16, at end insert—
'() An order shall not be made under subsection (2) above unless the Secretary of State has consulted—

(a) such persons or organisations appearing to him to be representative of boards of management and education authorities; and
(b) such other persons,



as appear to him to be appropriate as to the amendments proposed to be made by the order.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 7

FIRST TRANSFER OF COLLEGES

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 36, at end insert—
'() Nothing in subsection (3) above shall require the disclosure of any information in contravention of any provision contained in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument) restricting or prohibiting the disclosure of such information.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 60.

Mr. Forsyth: The amendment meets an undertaking given to the Committee. It makes clear, by express qualification, that the requirement on education authorities to provide information to boards of management: does not overrule other statutory provisions that prohibit or restrict such disclosure. I fully understand the sensitivity of, for example, records of needs where disclosure is restricted by section 60(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and by the Education (Record of Needs) Regulations 1982.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the hon. Member who tabled amendment No. 60 and raised the issue in Committee, I am most grateful to the Minister for taking my concerns on board. It has been a simple move to include further education colleges in the provision of the Education (Record of Needs) Regulations 1982 and I am sure that it will be appreciated by all concerned, including the organisations that work with people with special needs. I therefore welcome the move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 14, after 'nature' insert
'(including waiving or granting remission of fees)'

No. 21, in page 5, line 24, leave out 'disabled students and staff' and insert
'students who have learning difficulties and disabled staff'.

No. 22, in page 6, line 10, leave out from 'difficulties' to end of line 11.

No. 23, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
'() An order shall not be made under subsection (8) above unless the Secretary of State has consulted such persons or organisations appearing to him to be representative of boards of management and such other persons as appear to him to be appropriate as to the amendments proposed to be made by the order.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 11

TRANSFER OF STAFF

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 8, line 32, at end insert—
'() Where the Secretary of State proposes to make a direction in terms of subsection (2) above he shall consult—

(a) in the case of a direction designating a person, that person; and
(b) in the case of a direction designating a class or description of persons, such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of the class or description of persons,

as to the proposed designation.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 13

SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 11, line 41, at end insert—
'() Before making a direction under subsection (1) above as to the date by which an education authority and a board of management are to arrive at a written agreement, the Secretary of State shall consult the education authority and the board of management.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 14

DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN PROPERTY

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 12, line 46, after first 'of' insert 'or any consideration for'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 18

MISMANAGEMENT BY BOARDS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 14, line 34, leave out from 'of' to second 'this' in line 35 and insert
'sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 21

INFORMATION AS TO PROVISION OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 16, line 30, at end insert
'(including students with learning difficulties).'

No. 83, in page 16, line 33, leave out 'and'.

No. 29, in page 16, line 34, at end insert
'and
() the facilities provided or proposed to be provided for students of the college who have learning difficulties and disabled staff of the college.'.

No. 30, in page 16, line 45, at end insert
'without the prior consent, given in writing, of such student'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 22

CONTROL OF DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LAND ETC.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 17, line 4, leave out
'or any interest in land'.

No. 32, in page 17, line 18, leave out 'or interest in land'.

No. 33, in page 17, line 22, leave out 'or interest in land'
—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 25

DISPOSALS AND CONTRACTS WITHOUT CONSENT

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 19, line 7, leave out 'or interest in land'.

No. 35, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'or interest in land'.

No. 36, in page 19, line 12, leave out
'or an interest in land'.

No. 37, in page 19, line 36, leave out
'or an interest in land'.

No. 38, in page 19, line 41, after 'acquisition', insert 'of land'.

No. 39, in page 19, line 41, leave out from 'section' to 'the' in line 42.

No. 40, in page 20, line 1, leave out
'or an interest in land'.

No. 41, in page 20, line 15, leave out


'or an interest in land'.—[Mr. Lang]

Clause 26

RECOVERY OF LOSS AND DAMAGES.

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 20, line 31, leave out '"or interest in land'.

No. 43, in page 20, line 34, leave out 'or interest in land'.

No. 44, in page 20, line 35, leave out 'or interest in land'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 28

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AS REGARDS COLLEGE COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 22, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of the line and insert
'the date prescribed in pursuance of subsection (3) above'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 30

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 23, line 35, leave out 'or any interest in land'.

No. 47, in page 23, line 43, at end insert—
'"land" includes, without prejudice to the meaning given to it by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, an interest in land within the meaning of this section.'.

No. 48, in page 23, line 43, at end insert—
'() Any reference in this Part of this Act to a person who has a learning difficulty shall be construed in accordance with section 1(4) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 33

ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF EDUCATION PROVIDED BY INSTITUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 25, line 7, after 'shall' insert
'after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Council to be representative of institutions within the higher education sector'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 25, line 16, at end insert
'and in performing their functions under this subsection the Council shall have regard to such provision as is made as regards the assessment of the quality of education provided in institutions within the higher education sector in England and Wales in pursuance of section 68(1(a) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (assessment of the quality of education provided by institutions in England and Wales).'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Speaker: With this, we will take Government amendments 3 to 5.

Mr. Worthington: We particularly welcome Government amendment No. 3. We stress the importance of the quality assessment committee having an element of independence, and the proposal that at least half the members of the quality assessment committee should not be on the funding council meets our requirements. Therefore, we thank the Government for their amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in line 16 at end insert—

'(c) establish a further committee, to be known as the "Medical Standards Committtee", with the function of giving them advice on the quality of medical education and research.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 88, in line 16 at end insert—
'(3) The Medical Standards Committee shall liaise as appropriate with equivalent bodies in England and Wales, with a view to ensuring the uniformity of medical standards throughout the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Dalyell: The case is most succinctly put by the dean of the faculty of medicine in the university of Edinburgh.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Dalyell: As the amendment is important from the view of medical and other scientific professions in Scotland—[Interruption.] It is difficult to speak when people are making such as noise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members below the Gangway either come into the Chamber and listen to the debate or carry on their conversations outside?

Mr. Dalyell: The view of the dean of the faculty of medicine, who speaks with the full authority of the other medical professors in the university of Edinburgh and has had contact with those in Glasgow and elsewhere, was that he regarded
the establishment of a National Joint Council for Medicine and Dentistry as being particularly important. There are obvious reasons why these subjects need to be distinguished in this way … there is a statutory limit to the number of medical and dental students, unlike the free market situation that is developing for the numbers of other students. Hence the University cannot augment its income in relation to medicine or dentistry by increasing the student intake. This of course means that medicine and dentistry will become increasingly expensive when expressed in terms of income per full time equivalent number of staff. Without national recognition and protection our medical schools will suffer savage staff losses. That is, of course, happening here in Edinburgh where we are being asked to lose 83 posts despite being at exactly the average cost for United Kingdom medical schools.
The dean asks the House to appreciate
the key relationship of the medical and dental professions with the National Health Service.
He states:
That is vitually a monopoly employer and hence there has to be a relationship between the number of doctors employed in the NHS and the output of the medical schools. Again this is best done on a UK basis rather than a Scottish one.
That is one reason for the amendment.
According to Edinburgh university, we should not be training doctors and dentists just for Scotland. The dean states:
To do so would not only mean a drastic reduction in output but would destroy our role as one of the major medical schools in the UK.


He also argues that we must consider how to maintain national standards. The General Medical Council plays the key role, as does the General Dental Council—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has a distinguished medical school within his constituency, at Southampton university. I would have hoped that he would support us.
The letter continues:
Currently the Education Committee of the GMC is suggesting major changes in the curriculum. The GMC has recently carried out a national review of the final professional examination. All these endeavours are designed to maintain the UK's role as a centre of excellence for medical education and to allow confidence in the uniformity of qualification standards. In this context it makes considerable sense that there should be a National Joint Council for Medicine and Dentistry which could then act as a bridge between the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and one for England and Wales. It would then be complementary to UK-wide organisations such as the GMC.
That is the considered view of the dean. Because of the importance of the subject, I thought that it was only sensible to bring it to the attention of the Scottish Office.
I have just received a letter from the Minister; for the sake of coherence, I should like to outline it to the House, because I wish to reply to it in the hope that the Government will make a further response. The Minister acknowledges the letter from Professor Christopher Edwards. Following a conversation which took place at the House, he says that he has had a chance to study amendment No. 87 in the light of the concern which I expressed in Committee about maintaining United Kingdom links. He says:
Unfortunately, I think amendment No. 87 would be a step in the wrong direction, as it simply requires the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to set up a Scottish Medical Committee. What we want is a joint, UK medical committee, and I shall be glad to give you an assurance in the House that the Government will require the three funding councils to take action and set one up.
Fortuitously, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is present. I hope that he will spring to his feet and agree to that. He was referred to in Committee at length in terms of his D. H. Lawrence attitude. Here is his chance to contribute to Scottish proceedings.
There is real concern about medical standards. It is probably a United Kingdom rather than a Scottish matter, as the Minister's letter suggests, but it is important that, in the English Bill or from the Secretary of State for Education and Science tonight, we get an undertaking. I cannot think of any other reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should so courteously have come to the House to take part in our debates. [Interruption.] Sotto voce the Secretary of State says something. If he had spoken a little louder, we would have heard what he said.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have been drawn here by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: I had better complete the picture. The Minister says in his letter that the procedure was adopted with the Universities Funding Council in 1988 and he sees no reason why it should not produce the desired effect now. He hopes that that meets my concern, but it does not completely meet my concern. I should like to know in concrete terms what the Department has in mind to insert in legislation.
In Committee, among the many letters which I offered to my colleagues was one from Lord Wilberforce. The Appeal Court judge of many years reminded us that what Ministers or any of the rest of us said in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House mattered not at all when it came to the courts interpreting legislation. That is why it is so important and why I asked for a concrete undertaking about what will be introduced in legislation on the subject. I leave it at that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for reading out my letter, which I gave him this afternoon. That obviates the necessity for me to repeat the points in it. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of a co-ordinated approach and of the three funding councils operating with a joint medical committee. I do not know what I can say to the hon. Gentleman to persuade him that it is not necessary to put this on the face of the Bill to ensure that it is delivered, but I can give him an undertaking—in concrete, stone or any material of his choosing—that the Government will ensure that the funding councils take note of the views expressed in this House, and will ensure that there is co-ordination between the three funding councils in the form of a joint medical committee.
This will meet the reasonable expectations of those who have argued in favour of the importance of this idea. I do not underestimate it: I simply take issue with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow said at the end of his speech—that this matter must be written into the legislation, and that it is a matter for the courts. It is not. It relates to the relationship between the Secretaries of State in the territorial areas and their respective funding councils.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment and will take comfort from having secured a far stronger undertaking than he was given in Committee. His persistence in advancing this view has scored something of a victory.

Mr. Dalyell: I am always prepared to accept assurances that doubtless are given in good faith, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 25, line 17 after 'be', insert—
'(a) persons who are not members of the Council; and
(b)'.

No. 4, in page 25, line 19, at end insert—
'and in appointing such persons the Council shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of such higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.'.

No. 5, in page 25, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) A committee established under this section shall be treated as if it were a committee established under paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 36

GRANTS

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 27, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—


(2) The terms and conditions referred to in subsection (1) above shall not be expressed so as to affect the provision of financial support by the Council in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution.
(2A) Such terms and conditions may, in particular, impose requirements to be complied with by all institutions or all institutions falling within such class or description of institutions as is specified in the terms and conditions and, notwithstanding subsection (2) above, may be such as to require that, before financial support of any amount or description or any part of such financial support so specified is provided by the Council in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution, the institution shall have complied with such requirements.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, amendment (a), leave out subsection (2A).
As the Minister will know, this clause and clause 48 have a great deal of history behind them, constituting what Lord Simon of Glaisdale called a double-barrelled gun. We are discussing the importance of academic freedom, the conditions under which grants can be given and the directions that can be given to institutions or the funding council.
We all agree that a strong element of accountability is necessary in the spending of public money and that some conditions need to be laid down by the Secretary of State. We have just discussed medical students and medical schools, and we should certainly know how many people are training to be doctors. Similarly, however, there needs to be a hands-off approach by the Government so as to secure academic freedom.
The Minister kindly agreed to have another look at clause 36. Inevitably, we compare the Scottish legislation with that for England and Wales, and we find that part of what the Government propose is acceptable. Hon. Members on both sides are determined that the Government should not be able to issue instructions that affect the financial support for one particular institution. That would be interference. We set up the funding council to prevent that.
In subsection (2), proposed in amendment No. 6, the Government have honoured that obligation and in general subsection (2) has no problems for us. Unfortunately, the proposed subsection (2A) brings in difficulties to which I shall address myself. The first difficulty is that some institutions could be in a class of one; an institution in Scotland could be unique. I mention, for example, the school of architecture in Scotland. There is only one and I mention that because the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that the Government would not want a school of architecture to lengthen its degrees to seven years. The school of architecture would be in a class of its own, and, according to the proposed subsection (2A), it would be legitimate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene.
10.15 pm
The second and more substantial objection is that amendment No. 6 uses the words "notwithstanding subsection (2) above". It seems that the Secretary of State, if it suited him, could ignore subsection (2). It would be possible for the Secretary of State to lay down a condition that would affect individual institutions. That is why we propose that subsection (2A) should be withdrawn.
However, that is not our final position, and there is still some distance to go on the issue. As the Minister will know, in the other place, Lord Beloff moved an amendment, which was accepted, which said:
such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assesed, or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students.
We are gradually on our way to the solution here. The Opposition object to the words "notwithstanding subsection (2)", because they seem to invalidate subsection (2), in which the Government have said that financial support cannot be interfered with to affect any particular institution.
Lord Beloff's proposition in the other place was valuable, because it clearly said that there were areas of academic freedom in which one must not interfere. In the spirit of the Government and the Opposition looking for a formula, I ask the Minister to respond.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I advise the House that amendment (a) should not be made.
There is not a great deal of difference between the Government and the Opposition on the matter. Amendment No. 6 fulfils my commitment in Committee to redraft clause 36(2) to make it clear that institutions' specific conditions on grant are not permitted. The amendment achieves that admirably and I hope there will be less confusion about the Government's policy in the area from now on. I will spell it out. The Secretary of State's powers to attach terms and conditions to his grant to the council have not been, are not and will not be capable of allowing for institution-specific conditions.
The wording in subsection (2A) is necessary to ensure that the general terms and conditions that the Secretary of State may impose are capable of taking effect. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about that wording, and his amendment seeks to remove it. We need the wording to ensure that institutions that comply with the general conditions benefit, and that those that do not comply do not benefit—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is following this. I am sure that the conversations taking place are to the benefit of us all, but he should be clear on this matter because it is a difficult point. It is a matter of legal wording, and I spent some time considering it.
I shall repeat what I said. We need the wording in subsection (2A) to ensure that institutions that comply with the general conditions benefit, and that those that do not comply do not benefit. For that reason, I cannot accept amendment (a), as it would prevent the powers from being used effectively in practice.
I told the Committee that I had discussed these matters with Professor Forty, the chairman of the Committee of Scottish University Principals. I am glad to report to the House that he regards our amendment as a significant and helpful clarification of the Government's policy in this area, which he considers establishes an appropriate framework for the relationship between the Government, the funding council and the institutions.
The hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his purpose; I am grateful to him for the constructive way in which he approached this matter and for his helpful suggestions. We now have a form of wording that meets what the Committee required.

Mr. Dalyell: Can we take it that the Minister is speaking on behalf of all the seven other Scottish vice-chancellors, and that there are no reservations among any of them? That is correct, is it not?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that I could speak for the principal of Stirling university in his capacity as chairman of the Committee of Scottish University Principals. What I told the Committee was that I would consult him. I met him, and he tried to help to frame a form of wording that would meet the anxieties expressed by his colleagues. I think that he would be cross with me if I were to suggest that he was necessarily speaking for all of them. To be able to speak for all the university principals on any issue would be quite an undertaking.

Mr. Stephen: The Minister chose his words carefully in describing the chairman's view. Does he believe that the chairman approves of the wording in the amendment and that all his concerns are satisfied? The Minister said that the chairman thought that the wording made a useful contribution—or words to that effect. We should be clear whether he is or is not satisfied with the amendment.
As a lawyer, my view is that subsection (2A) is very difficult, verging on the incomprehensible, and certainly would not get a plain English award. Parliamentary drafting is at its best when it is simple, lucid and clear, and this subsection certainly is not. From what can be discerned about the wording, the phrase "notwithstanding subsection (2)" tends to suggest that it could apply to a single institution. As subsection (2) is about ensuring that the terms and conditions cannot be applied to specific institutions, the amendment fails the very test that the Minister set himself in Committee.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the quality of the drafting. I accept the hon. Gentleman's complaints about the difficulty of the wording. At the time when the Committee was seeking to change the wording, I was advised that the process would be rather difficult and clumsy. I agree that the wording is not—I was going to say crystal clear, but that would have implied that it was not clear. I am advised that the meaning is clear, although I accept that it needs to be read carefully.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) seemed to feel that the words "notwithstanding subsection (2)" would allow the Secretary of State to ignore the subsection. They do not mean that; they mean that the Secretary of State can impose general conditions that impact at institutional level. The hon. Gentleman asked about the position regarding the university principal, John Forty. I understand that he has

told the Department that he thinks that his colleagues would find the provision acceptable, and that he is happy with the wording as it stands.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about classes of one. Classes of one are possible, but, if the Secretary of State knew in advance that a class had only one member, he would fall foul of subsection (2) and the ban on institutions' specific conditions. If, however, a general condition in the event proved to apply to only one institution, that would be allowed.
I am sure that that is very clear to the hon. Gentleman. I can only say that it was the Committee that asked us to deliver; we have delivered, and I hope that its members will not complain. I believe that we have a measure that should satisfy the Committee and the university principals, and, more important, provide a basis for future funding that will command consensus support.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that hon. Members should lightly try to advise those in the other place. I trust, however, that I will be permitted a reaction which I hope will not be in any way offensive. I hope that the measure will be subjected to the eagle eye of Lord Wilberforce and his colleagues the Law Lords, and that they will scrutinise it carefully. It is obviously a pitch for the lawyers in the other place, and I hope that the Minister's words pass the test.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I express my appreciation to the Minister, who has at least attempted to make clear in the legislation that which the Committee sought. I make no complaint—I am not carping—when I say that the Government amendments are far from clear to me, and I am not sure that they are clear to anyone. The principle of what we are trying to achieve, however, is entirely clear. It has not been possible for me to consult the principal of the university of Aberdeen to find out whether he is satisfied with the amendment, but I suspect that, even if I had been able to do so, he might not have been able to give us categorical advice.
In Committee, the Minister said that it would be difficult to draft an amendment to make clear the issues about which we were concerned—academic freedom, for instance. I think that he has made it clear that he accepts the principle. Although we have not had much time between Committee and Report, I hope that the Minister will assure us that, between now and discussion of the Bill in the other place, the Government will look closely at the provision with the parliamentary draftsmen and that, if any tidying up proves necessary, it will be done. I should be content with that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Of course I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Worthington: I think that we are making good progress on this issue. One of the advantages of accepting that both the Minister and Opposition Members are still looking for a solution is that we could clarify the attitude of the vice-chancellors. There is ambivalence about this issue. I know that the Minister met Professor Forty to discuss it and I accept the Minister's assurance about what Professor Forty said. I know, too, that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at national level is not happy about the proposal and feels that it needs to he looked at again.
If the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) can read this and impose upon it the same reservations, as a lawyer, that I have, it is clearly open to misinterpretation. We do not even have to take into account the credibility of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside as a lawyer. The test of the clause is whether it can be understood. We have heard doubts expressed about whether it can be reasonably well understood.
I accept the Minister's assurance about a class with only one pupil. He made a valuable point. I still think that there would be value in looking at the amendment that was accepted, although against the Government's wishes, in the other place—about it being made absolutely clear that the terms and conditions that are applied to grants cannot be framed by reference to particular courses of study, or by reference to particular programmes of research, and that they cannot be about the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff or for the admission of students. Those are valuable additions to the clause in order to make it absolutely clear that what the Government and Opposition are attempting to do is to make it clear that conditions that interfere with academic freedom cannot be imposed.
On the basis of people not being backed into corners, of not being confrontational and of still looking for an improvement to the wording, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. We do not say that the Government's amendment is the best solution. We accept the Minister's assurance that they have taken steps forward but that they will see whether they can take further steps forward by introducing absolutely clear-cut wording into the clause. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the proposed amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Clause 37

FURTHER FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 28, line 11, at end insert—
'() The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (5) above unless he has consulted—

(a) the Council; and
(b) such organisations as appear to him to he representative of institutions within the higher education sector.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 41

CLOSURE OF INSTITUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 30, line 43, at end insert—
'() An order under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted—

(a) the Council; and
(b) the governing body of the institution proposed to be closed.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 39

POWER OF PRIVY COUNCIL IN RELATION TO DESIGNATED INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 29, line 4, leave out from "functions" to end of line 7.
This is a probing amendment. Like all probing amendments, it can be elastic. My first point relates to the central issue of money, and it is to ask the Minister what he would have said in response to new clause 21, about superannuation entitlements. I hope that that does not stretch the House's patience too far. We know what happened a few minutes ago—there was a mistake—and this is an important subject.
The purpose of the probing amendment is to ask what the Government's attitude is to academic endowments. I couple it succinctly with a strong personal feeling that in this country we do not take advantage of potential endowments as happens in the United States and, perhaps above all, in Israel. Anyone who has been to the Hebrew university in Jerusalem will have seen many faculties endowed by people whose names have been preserved—

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is a scientist who has travelled widely, and he knows exactly what I am talking about.
Some universities abroad attract a great deal of money through named bequests. It is an understandable trait of human nature that people often like their names and those of their wives or others to be remembered, and they give a great deal of money to that end. We have lost in the past 20 or 30 years by not tapping that source of money.
Earlier, we discussed the chair of Scottish history and the Fraser endowment. Incidentally, I think that the Fraser endowment moneys have not been managed as wonderfully on the stock market as they might have been, but that is bye the bye. However, the important fact is that they were endowed in the first place, and that is how many such chairs occurred. In such circumstances, I feel entitled to ask what the Government's attitude is to academic endowment. It would be a great courtesy if they would tell us in answer to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and our colleagues raised on the subject of superannuation entitlements, producing the new clause which read:
'—. The Secretary of State shall ensure that provision is made for staff of institutions newly designated as universities to have superannuation entitlements which are no less favourable than those applicable to staff in established universities.'.
It would be a courtesy to the House if the Minister could respond to that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in so far as this matter is concerned with money. I suppose that new clause 21 was also concerned with money, so that there is a clear link between the two. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance, but I know from experience in Committee that the hon. Gentleman will find a way to pursue the matter, so I am happy to respond.
The key point in relation to academic staff and pension provision is that the main benefits which are payable by the two schemes are broadly the same, which is one eightieth of pension salary index linked for each year of


reckonable service up to a maximum of forty eightieths at normal retiring age and a lump sum payment of three times annual pension. Therefore, conferring a right on individuals to transfer between them is of little value. In fact, the level of employee contribution in the university scheme, at 6·35 per cent., is marginally higher than that in the teachers' scheme at 6 per cent.
What I would have said in respect of new clause 21 is that it is wrong-headed because pensions are essentially a benefit which flows from employment and it is employers rather than individual employees who must decide which scheme to provide. It would also involve considerable extra financial burdens for employers, money which the Government believe should be spent on the provision of higher education.
On amendment No. 89, subsection (2)(c) is not a new provision. It is lifted directly from section 77 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and was inserted into that Act by the Education (Scotland) Act 1981. The reason for the provision was that the Secretary of State's powers to reorganise educational endowments which were contained in part VI of the 1980 Act were being handed to education authorities, at least in respect of locally funded education.
The powers relating to grant-aided colleges were retained and transferred to the section of the 1980 Act dealing with the government of these colleges. It might interest the House to know that the Secretary of State's powers in part VI of the 1980 Act were simply carried over from the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. Therefore, the Secretary of State has had the powers to deal with endowments for at least 30 years.
The provision in clause 39 allows a simple means of amending endowments to reflect changes to the institutions to which they relate. For instance, if at present a grant-aided college, or, in future, a designated institution, were to change its name or merge with another institution, the appropriate change could be made to any endowments related to the college or institution.
So clause 39 simply transfers to the Privy Council the Secretary of State's existing powers in that area. We have made no changes to the provisions relating to endowments, in keeping with the spirit of the higher education White Paper, which was that existing and successful arrangements for the colleges should broadly remain as they are.
By way of summary, let me say that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow is that there is no change in the Government's policy on the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: That was as helpful a reply as the Minister could have given. I think that the Department should discuss the matter with the Treasury, and reflect how endowments for hard-pressed institutions such as the University of Edinburgh could be encouraged. In that spirit, unless any of my colleagues wishes to speak, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 29, line 10, after 'above', insert
'if neither the institution nor the governing body is, immediately before the order is made, a body corporate.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 41

CLOSURE OF INSTITUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 30, line 43, at end insert—
'() An order under subsection (1) above shall not he made unless the Secretary of State has consulted—
(a) the Council; and
((b)) the governing body of the institution proposed to be closed.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 42

POWER TO AWARD DEGREES, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Privy Council'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 48

DIRECTIONS

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 33, line 29, after 'directions' insert
'under this section, and such directions shall be'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 86, in page 33, line 29, at end add
', provided that these directions have previously been approved by the Committee of Scottish Vice-Chancellors.'.
Government amendment No. 10, in page 33, line 29, at end insert—
'() The Secretary of State may give general directions to the Council about the exercise of their functions.
() If it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that the financial affairs of any institution within the higher education sector have been or are being mismanaged; or
(b) that, in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution, it is likely that the financial position of the institution will be significantly adversely affected,

he may, after consulting the Council and the institution, give such directions to the Council about the provision of financial support in respect of the activities carried on by the institution
as he considers are necessary or expedient by reason of the mismanagement or, as the case may be, adverse effect on the institution's financial position.'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 6, leave out from 'mismanaged' to end of line 8.
Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment (c) to the proposed amendment, in line 15, leave out from 'mismanagement' to end of line 13.

Mr. Forsyth: Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 arose out of undertakings that I gave in Committee to take clause 48 away and to bring forward amendments which would do two things. First, they would make it clear that the power extends to institution-specific directions. Secondly, they would restrict directions to financial matters. Amendment No. 10 goes rather further than this, since it allows the Secretary of State to make an institution-specific direction only where it appears to him that there has been mismanagement of the financial affairs of the institution, or where the institution's financial position has been significantly adversely affected for some other reason. In addition, the directions may relate only to the provision of


financial support by the council to the institution, and they must arise out of the financial difficulties suffered by institutions, and not from any other source.
I believe that the amendments provide a firm basis on which to develop a constructive relationship between the Government, the funding council and the higher education institutions in Scotland. The amendments represent a significant restriction of the Secretary of State's powers in this area and follow extensive representations by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). As with conditions on grant, we have discussed the matter with Professor Forty, the chairman of the Scottish Committee of University Principals, and I am pleased to report that he was encouraged by the way in which we proposed to restrict the power. In particular, he saw the reference to financial difficulties arising otherwise than through mismanagement as an acceptable form of potential protection for institutions which may be confronted with funding difficulties through no fault of their own. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members that the Secretary of State's power of direction in relation to higher education funding always has been capable of extending to institution-specific direction. That was true under the Education Reform Act 1988, although that Act did not spell out that institution-specific directions were permitted because the legal advice available to the Government at that time indicated that it was not necessary to do so. It was made abundantly clear, however, during the passage of the Act that the power of direction was intended to be capable of being institution-specific.
Since then, there has, of course, been the court case in England relating to conditions of grant, and the legal advice now available to the Government is that the 1988 Act will no longer do. If we are to continue to have institution-specific powers of direction, we must say so explicitly, and that is what we have done. The policy therefore has not changed, but the legal environment has, and the words that we need to achieve the same effect in legislation have had to change too.
10.45 pm
The power is clause 48 is intended to be used only as a last resort in emergencies after the other available solutions have been found wanting. The power of direction is, in a sense, a form of disaster insurance. We cannot foresee precisely what disasters will hit the higher education system in years to come, I hope that none will, but we need to have some way of dealing with them if they do arise.
Amendment No. 10 allows us to cover both disasters that appear to have arisen because of financial mismanagement and those caused by other factors. The reason for extending the provision beyond financial mismanagement is that it would allow the Government to help where, for instance, a natural disaster had struck an institution and put it out of operation, or if a significant portion of its funds were lost due to the collapse of a deposit-taker. We could all think of examples of that. Mismanagement might not be involved, or it might be difficult to take a reasonable view on whether it was or was not, but action would still be needed. Accordingly, I

believe that amendment No. 10 provides a useful degree of protection, which would be removed by amendments (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. Stephen: I understand that an amendment to the English and Welsh Bill was introduced to cover this very matter, but that proposed new paragraph (b) was not included. Why does the Minister feel that a wider power—beyond that to deal with cases of mismanagement—is necessary in the Scottish Bill but not in that governing England and Wales? Or does he expect further changes to be made to that Bill?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the neighbour of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen), the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), makes a career of going round Scotland telling everyone that I look at what is happening in England and immediately impose it in Scotland as part of the Government's education policy. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know, therefore, that the amendments—as I said in Committee would be the case—have been drafted to suit Scottish circumstances, following discussions with the Scottish representative of the university principals, and they reflect the provisions that we believe are necessary.
I have not studied the English provision, but I think that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is referring to the fact that, in the Scottish provision, there is greater freedom for the Secretary of State to intervene in cases where disasters appear to have arisen not solely as a result of financial mismanagement. Let me give an example. All of us are well aware of what happened in the Western Isles following the collapse of BCCI. It is possible that a university will find itself in similar circumstances at some point in the future.

Mr. Stephen: That was mismanagement.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may argue that it was mismanagement, although I dare say that the convenor of the Western Isles would seek to argue to the contrary. The important point is that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene immediately, and should not have to send in a team of accountants and professionals to establish whether there were grounds for intervening because mismanagement had arisen. That is why the wider wording is proposed. That seems to me sensible, and we seem to have agreement on it.
I apologise for speaking at length on this matter, but it is one of the key issues in the Bill. I thought that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside was going to ask why the Secretary of State should need a power of direction in these circumstances—why could he not rely on persuading the council to act? The answer is that, in some circumstances, the council might be unwilling to embark upon the action necessary without the explicit backing of the Secretary of State and Parliament. The council might be in complete agreement about what should be done but might simply feel that the necessary action exceeded the scope of its legitimate authority.
In those circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate to require the consent of the universities, as proposed in amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). That amendment relates to all directions to the council, not just to the institution-specific ones. If we are not requiring the council's consent, why do we need that of the universities. What about the rest of the


higher education sector? The point is that responsibility to Parliament for the stewardship of public funds rests with the Secretary of State, not the universities, and it is right that responsibility for framing directions and seeking parliamentary authority for them should rest with the Secretary of State, too.
An important point, which I feel is often overlooked here, is that all the Secretary of State's directions must be contained in an order which is subject to parliamentary procedure. The Secretary of State cannot simply write quietly to the council and tell it what to do. He must lay an order before both Houses of Parliament, publish it and expect a debate on it if only one Member of either House objects.
The Secretary of State's powers under clause 48 are hedged around both by the restrictions of parliamentary scrutiny and by the restrictions imposed by amendment No. 10, essentially tying the directions to financial matters. This, I believe, provides an acceptable means of providing the public interest and the funds involved and of safeguarding academic freedom and the autonomy of our higher education institutions.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie, for Linlithgow and for Kincardine and Deeside for their contributions in Committee. This has not been an easy matter, but I believe that we now have a form of words that will satisfy the needs of higher education in Scotland and provide the necessary protection to ensure accountability over public funds.

Mr. Worthington: I propose to approach these provisions in the same spirit as I approached clause 36 and to see whether we can advance any further. I welcome the Minister's move broadly to limit the powers of financial mismanagement. That is the main proposal. There is a strong feeling among the members of the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics that clause 48 is not necessary because the Secretary of State has so many other powers, both formal and informal. Clause 48 is predicated upon the premise not only that individual institutions will be financially mismanaged and go off the rails, but that the funding council will go off the rails simultaneously. The accounting officers in both the institution and the funding council have the power to exercise accountability, but there are all sorts of other informal powers, such as the powers of the press and of Parliament. We discussed the affairs of the University of Edinburgh earlier. Such informal power can have a considerable influence. Although I shall not push it, there is a question about whether clause 48 is necessary.
In the spirit of trying to find an answer, Opposition Members share the concern of Government Members about accountability of public money—the two parties may soon change sides in this House. I accept that the Secretary of State should have some powers of intervention if the financial affairs of a higher education institution have been or are being mismanaged. However, there is a difficulty, which we mentioned in Committee, that financial and academic affairs cannot be perfectly disentangled. How does one judge what is financial mismanagement? It can mean that one has a policy of accepting too many students without an adequate income. As I have said, it is not easy to disentangle financial and academic mismanagement. One uses money for a purpose,

and that purpose is the policy of the institution. But let us set that aside because we are trying to deal with the issue of financial mismanagement.
The Minister then put a very benign interpretation on new paragraph (b), which states:
that, in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution, it is likely that the financial position of the institution will be significantly adversely affected".
The Minister included some sort of natural disaster. I know that recently my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) went to see the Minister because of asbestos in a school in his constituency. In a sense that is a natural disaster and the Minister might take action to assist. That is benign intervention. It is good that a Minister intervenes to save an institution from asbestos, an earthquake or some other act of God. The phrase
in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution
does not cover only benign intervention; it covers any action by the Government that would have an impact on the financial position of an institution. It is like the "notwithstanding" provision that we debated on a previous clause. It gives the Government the power to intervene.
In trying to solve these extremely difficult problems it is natural to consider what is happening in the other place and how this matter is being resolved in the English and Welsh Bill. It is striking that there now seems to be agreement. Both Professor Forty and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals are satisfied with the progress being made and that clause 81(3) is about financial mismanagement and not about
matters outwith the control of such an institution".
Clause 81, the equivalent of clause 48 in this Bill, is no longer an area of contention.
I applaud the Minister for the progress that has been made. There remain difficulties about the ambiguity of the expression:
in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution".
It can have the benign interpretation that the Minister put upon it, but it can also have other connotations. Other hon. Members wish to speak, but that is my reservation.

Mr. Stephen: First, I compliment the Minister on his efforts in this area. He has taken a positive approach to overcoming this problem, which at one time was not the case on the English and Welsh Bill. Clearly, we have made significant progress.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and remain worried by the wording of paragraph (b). The Minister mocks me when I refer to the English and Welsh Bill by saying that we should do our own thing in Scotland. Indeed, I welcomed his willingness to take a different tack from that in England and Wales.
The issue concerns academic freedom and this wording infringes it more than does that in the English and Welsh Bill. I believe that the wording for that Bill is exactly the same, except that paragraph (b) is omitted. The Minister may want to correct me on that. Paragraph (b) gives further powers to the Secretary of State. Inevitably, that means a lessening of academic freedom. It has been argued that that is a benevolent reduction, because reserve powers should be given to the Secretary of State so that he can step


in in unfortunate, unexpected circumstances. I understand that approach, but the wording of paragraph (b) does not bring into law the aims set down for the Scottish Office.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me, which may be put right shortly, as he has a copy of the English Bill, which I have not studied. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that the provisions are broader and that the difference arises from the provision in the Scottish Bill, which allows for action in the event of natural disaster, for example, is that not beneficial to Scottish institutions? Why does he want to remove that provision?

11 pm

Mr. Stephen: I accept that there is an advantage in terms of what the civil law in Scotland would regard as force majeure circumstances—the one-off, unexpected situation. I accept what the Minister said about BCCI. However, even though the Law Lords have significantly greater legal expertise than any of us, the wording in Bills can still be confusing to them. Paragraph (b) states:
in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution"—
that is an extremely broad term—
it is likely that the financial position of the institution will be significantly adversely affected".
Does the Minister believe that those words narrow the terms of the provision to the specific force majeure circumstances to which he referred? I believe that they do not and that is why I am still concerned about the clause.

Mr. Dalyell: I have given an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member of Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) that I will be quick.
I have had discussions with Michael Hamlyn of Dundee university, and I believe his lawyers. The universities of Dundee and Edinburgh want to know what exactly is meant by mismanagement. It is probably too late to go into legal definitions, but the key issue is in what circumstances the Government feel entitled to "bail out" a university? I am sure that those important questions will be explored by the lawyers in the Lords. Is the Minister prepared to discuss with the University of Dundee, which is extremely worried, exactly what is meant by mismanagement?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The difficulty that we have had all along is to find a form of words that will provide for the flexibility to deal with the unexpected while reassuring those who are concerned about how that power will be used.
When people have come to see me or have expressed a view about this issue, I have asked them whether they would like to set down their ideas about what those words should be. I have had very few takers. Many people have described what the parameters of the provision might be, but they have then said, "Well, you are the Minister. You have the draftsmen, you produce it." This is our best effort, looking at all the foreseeable circumstances.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) is right in believing that there are differences from the English provisions. The objective has been the same, but we have tried to protect the interests of the institutions in Scotland to the best of our ability and to accommodate the views expressed. I would he happy to ask my officials

to talk with the principal of Dundee—we are always happy to be involved in a dialogue with him. I am also happy to reflect on the points that have been raised during the debate.
However, the Government amendment is the best wording that we can achieve. I shall not rehearse the arguments for it at this late hour but they are clear. The universities' natural anxiety about academic freedom should have been dissipated by now, if only by the numerous assurances that have been given during our deliberations.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister assures us that the door is not closed but that we are edging forward. The point of contention now appears to be how institutions may be affected. Given the Minister's assurance that, if we can find a better form of wording, it can be inserted in the Bill in another place, I shall not press the sub-amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 33, line 29, at end insert—

'() The Secretary of State may give general directions to the Council about the exercise of their functions.

() If it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that the financial affairs of any institution within the higher education sector have been or are being mismanaged; or
(b) that, in consequence of matters outwith the control of such an institution, it is likely that the financial position of the institution will be significantly adversely affected,

he may, after consulting the Council and the institution, give such directions to the Council about the provision of financial support in respect of the activities carried on by the institution as he considers are necessary or expedient by reason of the mismanagement or, as the case may be. adverse effect on the institution's financial position.'.

No. 84—new schedule—

THE SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL

Status

1. The Funding Council shall not—

(a) be regarded as the servants or agents of the Crown;
(b) have any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown, and their property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

Tenure of office and superannuation of members

2.—(1) The Funding Council shall consist of not less than twelve nor more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, of whom one shall be so appointed as chairman.

(2) In appointing members of the Funding Council the Secretary of State—

(a) shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of further education (within the meaning of section 1(5)(b) of the 1980 Act) or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of such further education and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of such further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision; and
(b) shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.

House of Commons disqualification

3. In Part III of Schedule I to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices) there is inserted at the appropriate place—

"Any member of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council in receipt of remuneration."

Property and contracts

4. Subject to paragraphs 5 and 6 below, the Funding Council shall have the power—

(a) to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property;
(b) to enter into contracts, including contracts for the employment of staff for the purposes of the discharge of their functions;
(c) to invest any sums not immediately required by the Funding Council for the purpose of their carrying on any of the activities which they have power to carry on; and
(d) to accept gifts of money, land or other property and apply it to, or hold or administer it in trust for, the purpose of the discharge of any of their functions.

5. The Funding Council shall not borrow money from any source, give any guarantee or indemnity or create any trust or security over or in respect of any of their property which was acquired, improved or maintained wholly or partly, directly or indirectly out of funds provided by the Secretary of State under section [Payment of grants. etc. to Funding Council] of this Act or from the proceeds of or any consideration for the disposal of any property so acquired, improved or maintained.

6.—(1) The Funding Council shall not dispose of any property acquired, improved or maintained wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, out of funds provided by the Secretary of State under the said section [Payment of grants, etc. to Funding Council] or from the proceeds of or any consideration for the disposal of any property so acquired, improved or maintained without the prior consent, given in writing, of the Secretary of State.

(2) The consent of the Secretary of State may be given in respect of a particular disposal of property or of disposals of any class or description and may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.

(3) The consent of the Secretary of State is not required for the disposal of land which is or forms part of property mentioned in sub-paragraph (I) above where the disposal is in consequence of the compulsory acquisition of such land by any authority in pursuance of any power of compulsory acquisition under any enactment; but the Funding Council shall inform the Secretary of State of any such compulsory acquisition.

(4) Where any such property is disposed of, the Funding Council shall pay to the Secretary of State such portion of the proceeds or value of the consideration for the disposal, after deduction of such expenses as appear to the Secretary of State to have been reasonably incurred in the disposal, as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Funding Council, determine.

Execution of documents

7.—(l) For any purpose other than those mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, a document is validly executed by the Funding Council if it is signed on their behalf by a member of the Funding Council or by their secretary (or any person performing the duties of secretary to the Funding Council) or by any person authorised to sign the document on their behalf.

(2) For the purposes 'of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents, a document is validly executed by the Funding Council if it is subscribed on their behalf by being executed in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) A document which bears to have been executed by the Funding Council in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above

shall, in relation to such execution, be a probative document if the subscription of the document bears to have been attested by at least one witness.

Reports and accounts

8. The Funding Council shall make such reports or returns and give such information to the Secretary of State as he may require for the purposes of the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties under this Part of this Act.

9.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Funding Council—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;
(b) to prepare in respect of each financial year of the Funding Council a statement of accounts; and
(c) to send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

(2) The statement of accounts shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

(a) the information to he contained in it;
(b) the manner in which the information contained in it is to be presented; or
(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared,

and shall contain such additional information as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury require to be provided for the information of Parliament.

(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him in pursuance of this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.

(4) In this paragraph "financial year" means the period beginning with the date on which the Funding Council is established and ending with the second 31st March following that date, and each successive period of twelve months.

Additional provisions

10. An order made under section [Scottish Further Education Funding Council] of this Act may contain such additional provisions—

(a) relating to the membership, staff and proceedings of the Funding Council (including any committee of them);
(b) relating to salaries, pensions, allowances and any other payments to be paid to members of the Funding Council (including any such committee) and to staff; and
(c) as to the winding-up and dissolution of the Funding Council,

as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient.

11. Employment with the Council shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) , at the end of the list of "Other Bodies" there is inserted—

"Scottish Further Education Funding Council."—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 37, line 12, leave out
'ten nor more than sixteen'
and insert
'fourteen nor more than twenty'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:


[Madam Deputy Speaker]
No. 72, in page 37, line 22, at end insert—
'(e) no less than two persons nominated by the education authority in whose area the college is situated.'.
No. 73, in page 38, line 11 , leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'twenty'.
Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55.
No. 75, in page 40, leave out lines 40 and 41.
No. 76, in page 40, line 42, at end insert—
'(2) For a period of two years commencing from the first transfer date, a member (whether elected or appointed) or an employee of a local authority, shall not be eligible for appointment as chairman, but, after that time has elapsed, no such restriction shall apply.'.

Mr. Worthington: The amendment seeks to improve the college boards of management by increasing their size to make them more representative. We obstinately continue to believe that people from the education authority should be on the boards because that will allow collaboration. That seems to be common sense. We do not wish to exclude local authority employees from chairing such a board.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I made clear to the Committee considering the Bill, when we considered a similar amendment, that I do not consider that enlarging the size of boards would ensure that they are more effective. Nor do I consider that a better balance of interests would necessarily be achieved. I very much hope that board members will be able to take a broad view and not regard themselves as speaking for any narrow interest groups.
The Secretary of State will make the appointments to reconstitute college councils later this year. Those appointments will be based on the need to ensure a strong employer presence and on the basis of the personal qualities, experience and commitment that the individuals bring to the task. Those people will become the members of the first boards of management on 1 April 1993. I cannot, therefore, accept amendment No. 72.
However, I recognised the case made in Committee by the Opposition on an amendment seeking to restrict board members to serving no more than eight years. As we said in Committee, eight years seems too short a time for the college to capitalise on experience gained by individual members. However, having considered the matter carefully, I have tabled amendments Nos. 54 and 53, which will restrict board members to serving no more than three four-year terms of office, or 12 years in total. That will provide the college boards with new perspectives and new experience.
Amendment No. 55 is consequential and makes clear that in calculating the 12-year limit on membership of a board of management no account is taken of any previous service on a college council.
I have reflected on the position of elected councillors being allowed to become chairmen of college boards. I still remain of the view that that would be undesirable. Education authorities will have a duty to provide community education and a power to provide further education of the type falling within clause 6 of the Bill. Boards will be funded by the Secretary of State to provide both. The chairman of an authority's education committee could find himself chairing a board of management where serious conflict of interest could arise in the future.
It may be that, with the passage of years, the position would change, but that can be dealt with by the Secretary of State's order-making power in clause 3 to amend the provisions contained in schedule 1.
Those arrangements do not preclude education authority representatives either being appointed initially by the Secretary of State or subsequently by boards, but I stress that appointments will be made on the basis of personal qualities. I invite Opposition Members to acknowledge the concessions that I have made and to withdraw amendments Nos. 75 and 76.

Mr. Worthington: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 49, in schedule I, page 37, line 21, leave out from 'being' to end of line 22 and insert
'nominated by the students' association of the college from among students of the college.'.

No. 50, in page 38, line 22, leave out from 'person' to 'whether' in line 23 and insert
'appointed by being nominated by the students' association of the college'.

No. 51, in page 38, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert
'appointed by being nominated by the students' association of the college'.

No. 52, in page 38, line 39, leave out from 'by' to 'shall' in line 40, and insert
'being nominated by the students' association of the college'.

No. 53, in page 38, line 44, after 'board', insert '—(a)'.

No. 54. in page 38, line 48, at end insert—
'; or
(b) where the total number of years of any previous terms of office (whether or not consecutive) served as a member of that board exceeds eight.'.

No. 55, in page 38, line 48, at end insert—
'(2) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, in calculating the number of years served no account shall be taken of any term of office served as a member of a college council.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR COLLEGE COUNCILS

Amendments made: No. 62. in page, 47 line, 43, at end insert—

() The terms and conditions on which the Secretary of State may make any grants under this paragraph may include in particular conditions—

(a) enabling him to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by him if any other condition subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with; and
(b) requiring the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to him in accordance with any other condition remains unpaid,

but shall not relate to the application by the college council to which the grant is made of any sums derived otherwise than from the Secretary of State.'.

No. 56, in page 48, line 45, at end insert-—

'Establishment of students' associations

.—(1) Where, at the beginning of the transitional period, there is no students' association established for the students of the college, the college council shall, as soon as is practicable after that date (after consultation with such persons as appear to them to be representative of students of the college), make a scheme for the establishment of a students' association for students of the college.

(2) The primary function of a students' association of a college established under this paragraph shall be to represent the interests of students of such college.

(3) A scheme made under sub-paragraph (1) above shall include provision as to—

(a) the date on which the scheme is to come into effect, being a date not later than the day immediately before the first transfer date; and
(b) the initial composition and constitution of the students' association.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 6

THE SCOTTISH HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 52, line 41, leave out sub-section (7) and insert:

'(7) If an employee of the Council becomes a member of the Council and was by reference to his employment by the Council a participant in a pension scheme such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) above—

(a) thee Council may determine that his service as a member shall he treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Council whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 5 above; but
(b) if the Council determine as aforesaid, any discretion as to the benefits payable to or in respect of him which the scheme confers on the Council shall be exercised only with the consent of the Secretary of State given with the approval of the Treasury.'.

No. 12, in page 54, line 2, leave out from 'accounts' to 'and' in line 3.

No. 13, in line 6, at end insert—

'() The statement of accounts referred to in subparagraph (1)(b) above shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

(a) the information to be contained in it,
(b) the manner in which the information contained in it is to be presented, or
(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared,

and shall contain such additional information as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury require to be provided for the information of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 8

MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 57, line 44, after 'for', insert
'the Scottish Further Education Funding Council or'.

No. 15, in page 58, line 32, after 'for' insert
'the Scottish Further Education Funding Council or'.

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 59, line 22, after 'Act', insert
', in section 51, of this Act'.
Do the Government accept the amendment?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Much as I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman, I cannot as I do not accept that transport for students at boards of management colleges should remain with education authorities. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment. However, guidance will be given to boards on the exercise of their powers and I shall monitor the position to ensure that the present level of provision is at least maintained.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I remind the House of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that, at present, under section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, local

authorities have a responsibility to ensure that transport is provided where necessary. It is obvious that, not only is it necessary for students with disabilities to have reasonable transport, but that their transport often has to be specially adapted. As there is a clear obligation on the local authorities which is not, under the Bill, being given to the boards responsible for further education, that could cause difficulties for such people.
I am sorry that the Minister has not found it possible to agree with the reasonable amendment. I do not want to add to the controversy that we had earlier by saying that, yet again—and I congratulate them on this—our colleagues have obtained more in the English legislation than we have— [Interruption.] The Minister indicates dissent, but I won the last argument and I am not sure whether he wants another one at this late hour. But as he was profoundly unconvincing, and as another place is at present still considering the English position, I would not wish to force the point on the House.
I hope that another place will have a perhaps more inspired attitude to these matters.

Mr. Forsyth: As to winning the argument, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has grasped the difference in structure between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill. The duty in the Scottish Bill to provide further education remains with the Secretary of State; in the case of the English Bill it is transferred to the council. That is why there is a difference in provisions. The hon. Gentleman is confusing duties which remain with the Secretary of State and with the council.
11.15 pm
Under clause 8(2)(c) boards have power to provide to students of the college such assistance of a financial or other nature as they may consider appropriate. That will enable them to respond flexibly to the transport needs of their students, including students with learning difficulties. As I said to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I propose that guidance will be given to the boards on the exercise of that power. I will monitor the position to ensure that the present level of provision is at least maintained.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has nothing to fear from the provisions. I understand his anxiety about the matter, but the Bill will ensure that the provision of transport is at least as good as is provided at present and may very well be improved.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 59, line 34, at end insert—
'() In section 65B (provision for recorded children who have ceased to be of school age) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) above, the reference in that paragraph to any other body shall include a reference to the board of management of a college of further education (within the meaning of Part I of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992) making provision from which, in the opinion of the authority, the child might benefit.".'.—[Mr.Lang.]

No. 57, in page 60, line 10, at end insert—

'Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 c. 36

. In section 11(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (training and occupation of the mentally handicapped)—



(a) after the words "operation of" there shall be inserted "(a)"; and
(b) after the word "mind)" there shall be inserted the words 'or

(b) section 1 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (which imposes a duty on the secretary of State to secure the provision of adequate and efficient further education in Scotland),":.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent signified.]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill introduces fundamental reforms to further and higher education in Scotland and has been widely welcomed there. The Committee stage was marked by co-operative and constructive debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for his sensitive and skilful handling of the Bill in Committee and to Opposition Members for their positive approach to many aspects of the Bill. I feel sure that it is a better Bill than when it started. Of course, parallel debates in another place have informed our deliberations.
The Bill is an important measure of devolution. In further education, it devolves power from local authorities to local self-governing boards. The Government have met much of the anxiety of Opposition Members through the provision for a possible further education funding council to be established at a later date. In higher education, it introduces devolution from a United Kingdom funding council to a new Scottish body, something that has been universally welcomed by universities and others.
It is also an important measure to remove the artificial binary line in higher education. It introduces new arrangements for degree-awarding powers and for achieving university status. Scottish higher education is expanding rapidly and achieving new heights. As I said on Second Reading, there is an explosion of opportunity for our young people. The Bill matches the needs of the times, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Worthington: Briefly, I should like to respond to the Secretary of State and to express my thanks to my hon. Friends who have contributed positively to improving the Bill. I am glad that the Secretary of State paid tribute to the co-operative spirit in which we approached the Bill.
The Bill is in two halves. The further education part is virtually friendless in Scotland. There has been no sentiment for it. The only body of people who have been behind the Bill have been the principals of the colleges, and what did they say? They said that something had to be done to put right the mess which the Government had made of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989. They said that difficulty had been created because of the uncertainty of poll tax funding and of the regime laid down by the Government.
The Opposition welcome the transfer to Scotland of responsibility for higher education and the ending of the binary divide. Many apprehensions about academic freedom have been expressed, but we are moving towards a solution of that problem. We are still worried about quality, however—the change in the nature of the

relationship between research and teaching. We are not convinced that the Government pay enough attention to quality.
I thank the Minister for delivering every one of the pledges that he gave us in Committee. The Bill is considerably the better for that.
I thank all who have assisted the Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I echo the words of my hon. Friend—

Mr. Frank Haynes: Get on with it.

Mr. Dalyell: I will not. On second thoughts, I am always obedient to the Whips.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I thank the Minister for his courtesy to the Committee. His civil service team put in considerable efforts. The Minister is fortunate indeed to have such high-quality civil servants at the Scottish Office.
I fear that the Secretary of State was not right to claim that the Bill is universally welcomed. Count me out of that. More importantly, count out many of the science, engineering and medical professors in Scottish universities. There is considerable scepticism about the measure, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Of course, there may be widespread approval in certain circles, but it is far from widespread in other circles of important people who will have to make the Bill work.
I do not concede for a moment that this is a devolution measure.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will recollect very well that, in 1980, he piloted the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through the House. Some of us said that we would keep an eye on what happened to that Act in the years that followed. In the past 11 years, some of us have done precisely that, justifiably sending endless letters to the Department of the Environment.
I shall certainly keep a beady eye on this development, which I do not welcome. If some of those who proposed it are proved right in several years' time, I hope that I will admit as much, but I have grave doubts nevertheless, and they are shared by a large number of heavyweight people in the Scottish universities.
I hope that my colleagues will be able to effect what they say they will in respect of part I of the Bill. I believe in local authorities; their relationship with further education was extremely valuable.
I hope that I will prove to be wrong about the Bill. In the meantime, I am always obedient to the Whips, so I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Stephen: It was interesting to be given an insight earlier this evening into the Minister's attitude to his own brief. At times he was clearly not too pleased with the words he was reading out.
If the House will bear with me, I too can give hon. Members an insight into the words on my brief by reading them out:
I should begin by saying that the Report stage was dominated by Government amendments, which I believe is rare. This was because of the number of concessions made by the Minister, who on the whole gave a sympathetic response to many of the concerns expressed by members.
Everyone is grateful for that.


I can bear to say that, and I am happy to do so sincerely. The discussion in Committee and on Report has been positive and good natured.
We welcome the fact that provision for special needs is included in the Bill for the first time. Part I, with the inclusion of some form of commitment to a funding council, is an improvement, but we cannot support the removal of further education from local authorities. I remain firmly convinced, as does almost everyone in Scotland, that the Bill is a centralising measure which was brought about as much by the Government's hostility to local authorities and by the difficulties of the poll tax as by anything else. Where else did the great idea come from? Was it a Government commitment which was part of their manifesto? It was not. It was totally unexpected, and there was little if any warning for the local authorities involved. It is no great exaggeration to say that an accountable and integrated further education system is yet another victim of the disastrous poll tax.
Part II is far more welcome. We support a separate funding council, although we should prefer to see that under a Scottish Parliament. We also welcome the abolition of the binary divide. On a personal basis, I very much welcome the commitments given to RG1T in Committee.
There are aspects of the funding council which we shall seek to change in the other place. The council should have strategic planning powers so that the distribution of funds can be more firmly tied to the needs and shape of higher education. There remain concerns that academic freedom is not as entrenched as it should be. Although I appreciate the difficulties in wording, that remains an area of real concern to many principals in Scottish universities.
The failure to include some provision for the welfare of students is also deeply regrettable. Although the Bill in its present form is a significant improvement on its first form, it remains seriously flawed. I hope that we can see further improvements to the Bill in its later stages.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It seems but yesterday that the Bill was given its Second Reading on 26 November, yet there has been a great deal of debate of its contents. At that stage, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was a tremendous step forward for Scottish education, and suggested that it was almost home rule being delivered in

one fell swoop. That was a slight overestimate of the position, because all that the Bill involves is the transfer of very limited powers to organisations in Scotland.
The debate in Committee has taken place against a background of what the Chinese, who are celebrating their new year this week, would call "interesting times". The matters first raised in Committee will be discussed further in the general election, as we move towards far larger constitutional changes.
The Bill has been a step in the right direction. I have consistently supported the idea of a higher and further education council for our institutions in Scotland. I also place it on record that I very much welcomed the Minister's attitude in Committee. At times, he seemed to have to cope single-handedly with everything that came from the Opposition. The Committee was conspicuous for the fact that Conservative Members made few contributions; the majority came from the Opposition.
Although I have fundamental disagreements with the Minister on many issues, I acknowledge that he made many concessions to the logical arguments of hon. Members from the three Opposition parties involved. That is to be much encouraged and welcomed by us all.
I also pay tribute to those who wrote to us, including the principals of the colleges, the regional authorities which were deeply involved and various organisations—not least the voluntary organisations, which were concerned about particular issues such as students with special needs. It is valuable that their contributions have been so accurately recorded, both in Committee and on Report.
During our discussions, we have raised many issues that need deeper and further explanation if we are to achieve the right results for Scottish education. I think especially of our debate tonight on new clause 15, when there was an inadequate response from the Government, who appeared to have inadequate knowledge of the points being raised. That, in itself, is an argument for the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish affairs, which could consider in more detail an education system that we all value highly.
I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the words recorded in the Official Report, spoken both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, will be examined carefully and that what we have started will be built upon to make the Bill even better than it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I believe that there will be a consensus across the House on the Bill. As its provisions will be beneficial to many people, I hope that we shall deal with it expeditiously.
The House will recall that in the latter part of last year both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined measures to be taken by both the Government and mortgage lenders with the excellent aim of reducing the level of repossessions that were occurring at that time. Whatever party we belong to, all were agreed that that was a desirable aim.
Mortgage rescue schemes are an important part of that initiative. I am sure that we are all glad that many of the lenders—building societies, banks and others—have come forward with schemes to ensure, or at least to advance the proposition, that the number of repossessions should be reduced to the absolute minimum. The Bill will be a further significant contribution towards the vital aim of bringing reassurance to people who might otherwise be at risk of losing their homes. I am especially glad that lenders have given assurances that they will not repossess homes where direct payments are being made to cover the mortgage interest.
The Bill provides for the direct payment to qualifying lenders of the mortgage interest component of income support. It builds on existing, more limited arrangements that we have already introduced, which rely on suitable cases being referred to an adjudication officer who considers whether it is in the interests of the claimant for direct payments to be made. Those arrangements have already proved to be a useful interim measure—but they are only that, pending the introduction of the Bill, which provides for a much more comprehensive scheme. It will provide the basis for detailed regulations, which will come before the House in due course, to come into effect from April.
The Bill will cover those income support claimants who have an amount for mortgage interest included in their income support assessment. I think that by anybody's judgment, they should be making appropriate payments to qualifying lenders. The Bill will cover all such claimants, but the regulations specify the point at which the direct payments will start.
Many unemployed claimants stay on benefit for less than 16 weeks, during which only 50 per cent. of the mortgage interest is payable. After 16 weeks, the income support calculation for claimants under 60 years of age includes 100 per cent. of the eligible mortgage interest. Accordingly, we intend to provide in regulations for direct payments to start once that 100 per cent. of the eligible interest becomes payable in income support.
Perhaps I ought to make it clear that, when we talk of qualified lenders, we have in mind building societies, banks, insurance companies and other institutional lenders. Local authorities and certain other public bodies

with home loan facilities will also be included. It has been possible, relatively simply, to prescribe most qualifying lenders on the face of the Bill, but 1 hope that the Opposition and others will understand that provision for others, including some institutional and centralised lenders, can be made in the regulations that we shall introduce in due course.
The arrangements will, of course, impose a significant increase in administrative costs on the Benefits Agency. We therefore felt it appropriate, in our discussions with the lenders, to negotiate a contribution from lenders, so that the increased costs would be met at least in part by them and not entirely by the Government. I am glad to say that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has agreed to such an arrangement.
As I said at the outset, the scheme that the Bill introduces forms part of a positive and collaborative response from the Government and the lending institutions. The lenders have given assurances that they will not repossess the homes of people on income support whose mortgage interest is paid direct. In addition, lenders are drawing up mortgage rescue schemes, and are also examining ways of easing the terms of repayment to help people to stay in their homes.
I believe that, in introducing the Bill, the Government are playing their part, in collaboration with the lending institutions, in providing a powerful and constructive means of increasing the security of many people who might otherwise risk losing their homes. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill deserves a Second Reading and, indeed, passage into law.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Although we shall support the Bill because we believe that any measure that alleviates the terrible problem of repossessions is to be welcomed, the way in which the Minister presented it suggests that there is no problem. We should view the Bill in the light of the package of panic measures that were announced in December. as the rapidly rising tide of repossessions threatened finally to engulf the remnants of this lame-duck Government.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimated that there would be up to 100,000 repossessions in 1991—a staggering 120 per cent. increase on the previous year. The cause of the problem is absolutely clear, and is twofold. First, there is the utter incompetence of the Government's management of the economy: secondly. there are its housing policies. described in The Independent as
a disaster waiting to happen".
The management of the economy has caused massive interest rates, crippling mortgage rates and escalating unemployment. The Minister for Housing, who I am pleased to see is present, recognised in a previous debate that unemployment was a crucial part of the problem of repossessions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) would like to intervene, I should be pleased to give way, but if he listens he may learn something.
We must also blame the blinkered ideological dogma of a Government who have put owner-occupation at the top of every list, at the expense of decent affordable housing. Although we support the right-to-buy legislation, we wish that the capital receipts could be used by local authorities to provide affordable housing so that people would not be


forced into owner-occupation that they cannot afford. The consequence of these two strands of Government mismanagement of the economy has led to the appalling problem of homelessness, evictions, marriage breakdown and the human misery associated with the scandalous mismanagement of housing policy by the Government.
The building societies are not without blame, due to their lending policies during the 1980s which led to individual circumstances not being properly taken into account. The provision of 100 per cent. mortgages, as well as deferred interest schemes and low-start mortgages, led to the Government having to introduce these panic measures. The Labour party warned the Government of the time bomb that was being being created by their policies months before they took any action to try to stem the flow of repossessions. We should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who produced a proper, comprehensive mortgage rescue package long before the Government considered taking any of their panic measures.
What has happened since December, leading to the Bill that we are debating, shows clearly that the Government were more interested in grabbing the headlines about repossessions than in taking any action to stem the flow of repossessions.

Mr. Scott: 1 apologise for intervening during the hon. Gentleman's speech, but may we be absolutely clear about where the Opposition stand on these matters? The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made certain remarks, which I gather have been repudiated by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, about housing expenditure and the way in which resources from the sale of houses will be made available.

Mr. Bradley: What is more important is that the Government should recognise that repossessions cause real problems. We want to know whether the Government are tackling them. I should be happy to give way to the Minister if he could tell us how many schemes have been agreed with the building societies to tackle the problem, how many properties will he involved in those schemes and how many people have been helped by building society rescue packages. Can the Minister give us the absolute numbers involved?

Mr. Scott: A number of schemes have been announced. If the hon. Gentleman reads the national press, he will know how they are coming forward. I still want him to tell the House where he stands in the dispute between the shadow Housing Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are clear differences between them. The House is therefore entitled to know where the hon. Gentleman stands in that dispute.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister is clearly unable to tell us about even one scheme that is in place that is helping people over repossessions.
There is no clear statistical evidence of the effects that the Bill will have on repossessions. What we know from the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is that in May 1990 the annual equivalent of £553 million was paid to 310,000 claimants. There are no official statistics showing the number of income support claimants with mortgage arrears, so we have no evidence of the number of people who will be helped by the Bill.

Even if that information were available, it is not clear what proportion of the arrears could be averted by the direct payment of income support. The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that it will save 40.000 repossessions in 1992 but a recent report by UBS Phillips and Drew, entitled "Housing Market: An Economic Time Bomb", estimates that only 10,000 repossessions will be saved by the direct payment of income support. It still expects 80,000 mortgage repossessions in 1992. As I said, that is no better than last year.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to repossessions in the north-east and draw a comparison? Between January and August 1990, there were 5,460 repossessions, but between January and August 1991, repossessions nearly doubled to 8,830. Since the Chancellor made his announcement in December, no progress has been made, and people regularly come to tell me that their houses have been repossessed.

Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. 1 repeat my question to the Minister —how many schemes are currently in place to help people in the rescue package? There is still a staggering silence on that issue.
It should also be noted first that many essential housing costs of owner-occupation are not covered by income support and have to be met out of claimants' remaining basic benefit. I shall return to this issue later, but for the first 16 weeks only 50 per cent. of the interest is covered. Secondly, premiums for insurance policies linked to endowment mortgages are not covered. Thirdly, any costs for the maintenance of buildings are not covered. Therefore, it is possible that the Government and the lenders have overestimated the positive impact of the proposal on lenders' receipts and underestimated the problems which direct payments will cause to claimants.
I shall consider the second point in more detail because, contrary to some opinions, claimants usually put a high value on the retention of their home. Diversions of income support mortgage interest payments for other purposes in many cases reveal not mismanagement of benefits but the struggle claimants have in managing on the very low level of benefit of income support.
There is increasing concern about the multiple deductions from basic benefit faced by many claimants. An article in The Guardian on 24 January assured us that
more than one in ten relying on income support now face
pre-payment deductions to meet debts for poll tax, fuel and other bills.
Another direct deduction from benefits will put greater pressure on the already meagre benefits to which many people are entitled through income support.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman must understand that these deductions are not from the generality of income support but from payments specifically included in the applicable amount for mortgage payments. Surely it is right that the payments which are included in income support are paid to the mortgage lenders.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister is right, and that is why we are supporting the Bill. I am trying to point out that the argument that mortgage payments are being frittered away because some people have enough money in benefits to pay other bills is not true. The only way to help people is to increase benefits to a level that would cover the essential payments.


As I said, direct deductions cause great hardship and fly in the face of the Government's response to the social security advisory committee in 1986. The Government said:
direct payments arc both complex and costly administratively; and they diminish the claimant's responsibility to manage their own affairs.
We must consider the benefit level in the light of that statement.
The fundamental issue that is not covered in the Bill is that claimants are entitled to only 50 per cent. mortgage interest payments for the first 16 weeks of an income support claim. It is worth remembering that it was the Prime Minister, then wearing the hat of the Minister of State for Social Security, who introduced the cut in benefit in December 1986. Even he recognised at the time that the change was "contentious". He also said that it would have no effect on repossessions.
The Opposition believe that allowing only 50 per cent. for the first 16 weeks causes hardship to claimants, and can cause or exacerbate arrears which are then difficult to recover. Many claimants have problems in covering the cost in those weeks. In spite of the Minister's contention about people going off benefit within that period, the case is not proved. The arrears may not subsequently be pulled back.
Claimants who move into low-paid work get no help with their mortgage interest once they leave income support. Many pressure groups—representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group have been at the forefront of them—support the view that the Government should now withdraw the 50 per cent. rule and provide 100 per cent. help with mortgage interest repayments as soon as a claimant comes on to income support. That is our policy, and that is what we shall do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): Is that a pledge?

Mr. Bradley: It is an absolute pledge that that is what the Labour party will do.
I shall say something about the plight of home owners on low incomes—people who are not on income support. As we all know, the only help that they receive is through mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS. An increasing number of claimants are worried about their ability to afford mortgage repayments if they go into low-paid work and are no longer eligible for income support.
A study by Steve Webb and Steve Wilcox for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, entitled, "Time for Mortgage Benefits", and published in November 1991, showed that a couple with two children on mortgage payments of £70 a week would have to earn more than £200 a week before they would be better off than on income support.
In contrast, as the Minister knows, reasonable rent payments are eligible for housing benefit whether someone is on income support or not. The anomaly is especially ironic for a Government committed to extending home ownership. Indeed, we believe that it determined the shape of the mortgage rescue package, in that owner-occupiers have to be converted into tenants to take advantage of the scheme.
I believe that one of the reasons why the scheme has not really got off the ground is that, even when people are converted into tenants, when the housing associations take

over properties they realise that the rents that would have to be charged are so high that people in difficulty with their mortgages would still have to make very high payments even if such properties were converted to rented accommodation.
If the rescue packages are in place between the building societies and the housing associations, will the Minister tell us whether the rents will be affordable, and whether they will be covered by housing benefit?
The anomaly will become even more evident when the change in qualifying hours of work for income support is made in April. For new claimants the qualifying period will be reduced from 16 hours or more, and the income support problem will become more serious.
The Government should now consider extending help with mortgage costs to people who are not on income support—[Interruption.] I am asking the Government now in place to consider the idea that I have suggested, in the light of the problems that have been experienced. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members wish to intervene, I shall be happy to take their questions.
Even the Prime Minister recognised the problem when, as a Social Security Minister, he introduced the 50 per cent. rule. On 16 December, 1986, he said:
social security help applies only to those without jobs. There is an imbalance there"—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1129.]
We support the Bill, because any help to alleviate the horrors of losing a home is welcome, but we believe that it is too little and too late. If the Government had listened to us, many thousands of people who were home owners would not have lost their homes, or suffered the appalling misery associated with homelessness.
We firmly believe that a much more comprehensive package of measures should be put into place. As I said, we support the package proposed by our Front Bench before the Government introduced their panic measures.
We support the present Bill, but, as a Labour Government, we shall very soon welcome the opportunity to introduce comprehensive measures on housing and economic policy that will ensure that people keep their homes rather than suffer the misery inflicted on them by the Government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: My speech will be short and to the point, because the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has already referred to many of the points made by the pressure groups.
The Government must examine the trends that have been developing since the early 1980s. I accept that they are not all entirely within the remit of the Department of Social Security. The Minister for Housing and Planning, who is in his place, has some responsibility to examine some of the difficulties that have been caused. It is quite clear why those difficulties have arisen. In the early 1980s, the Government—properly, in my view —were encouraging people to enter into home ownership. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that some people on relatively low incomes were perhaps given rather too much encouragement to go into home ownership. Then, in the mid-1980s, came a series of hikes in the interest rates that those people had to pay.
The trends must have been clear even to the Department. In 1979, it was paying about £31 million in


income support for mortgage interest costs. That figure has now increased to about £600 million in 1992—a 900 per cent. increase. That is a lot of money. The Department cannot ignore that increase; nor can it ignore the extent of the difficulties that flow from the fact that many of those people—the figure is now one in 100—face repossession.
Although I support the Bill, I think that it is an inadequate response to that deepening problem—if it is the only response that the Government are prepared to make. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is to reply to the debate, will say what thought is now being given to the on-going trends.
In his statement of 19 December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to the fact that we do not really know as much as we would like about how many people on income support are in difficulty and not passing on their payments to the lender. One of the Government's intentions was to make efforts to find out more about that between now and April. It would inform the debate if the Under-Secretary could say what progress is being made in that direction. That is an important official statistic to know.
Is there any cause to revise the initial predictions that the Government were making about the number of repossessions that the Bill might prevent in the coming year? That, too, is an important figure. I was disturbed to discover that, in its report "Housing Market: the Economic Time Bomb", UBS Phillips and Drew was still predicting about 80,000 repossessions in 1992, notwithstanding the improvements that will be made by the Bill. It would help if the Minister would say something about what has happened since December, when the action proposed in the Bill was announced. What changes, if any, have been made?
I strongly support the points made by the hon. Member for Withington about the potential exacerbation of the situation by the change in the remunerative work rule. As I have said before, I well understand the reasons for that, and I am sympathetic to what the Government are doing in terms of the influence on family credit, but it is not acceptable for the Government to say that they cannot assess the full impact of the change on repossessions.
I have read and understood the report of the Standing Committee in which the Minister set out the transitional protection—that is fine and good—but have the Government considered finding a way of totally idemnifying those who will come on to income support in the future and who might be caught by the change in the 24 hour rule to 16 to try to give those people some access to the protection that is available to them until the change is made in April? There must be some people who will lose.
I do not believe that, with good will, it is impossible to address that problem, and I shall be interested to hear the Government's view. I know that they have tried to limit that damage, but I believe that the problem will be exacerbated if yet more is not done to address it. If the Department puts its mind to it, I am sure that there must be some way of retaining the existing entitlement.
I am also concerned about multiple deductions. The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee was compelling. I understand the Minister's point when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Withington—that we are talking about a deduction not from basic benefit, but from an addition. However, in addition to the provisions affecting mortgage interest, a

whole series of deductions is now biting on people's basic benefit. The Government must address the way in which that is increasing, and consider it carefully in conjunction with the SSAC and some of the other pressure groups, because it is beginning to affect people's freedom to choose.
An important part of the Government's policy previously was that people should have the ability to deploy their benefits. In their evidence to the SSAC, the Government argued vociferously that they did not want to incur the high costs of administering the benefits. We should not lose sight of the fact that there appears to have been a considerable change.
A mortgage benefit scheme of the kind for which Webb and Wilcox argued in the Rowntree Foundation report bears some examination. As I understand that we now spend about £5 billion per year on housing benefit, with a tax expenditure of £7 billion on mortgage interest tax relief, to move towards a scheme that would add on another £400 million and take the total cost of mortgage benefits in a full year to about £1 billion is not out of kilter with the trends of the past two or three years.
There must be some way of redeploying some of the MITR tax expenditure. I know that that will be difficult but, over a period, it should be possible to construct some way of redeploying some of the benefit, even if we are not talking about big total increases in benefits expenditure. I hope that the Department is doing some work on that, at least to the extent of studying the Webb and Wilcox scheme.
The Government should also examine the £35 million that it would cost to reintroduce the 50 per cent. payment in the first 16 weeks. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many repossessions such expenditure might save. Does the Department have any idea of the level of repossessions that might be avoided if that £35 million was expended? It must have some estimate of that. If not, it is high time it did.
Finally, more resources should be made available to enable the mortgage-to-rent schemes to work effectively. According to the Government's own philosophy, they are an efficient solution to the problem. Although I have not seen any costings of the amount that would be required to make a mortgage-to-rent scheme a viable proposition, having looked at the trends, my assessment is that the position will get worse before it gets better.
I do not know how easy it will be to find big sums of money, but I am persuaded that redeployment within the existing system in terms of tax expenditure through MITR and the rest should now be re-examined by the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, as well as by the Department of Social Security, if we are to try to make some real changes and improvements in the coming 12 months.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Much could be said in this debate, but I shall make just three short points which may help. The background to the debate is the repossessions that have taken place. All of us have constituency experience of the individual tragedy that that can be for those whose property is being repossessed. It is worth looking at the numbers involved.
The numbers produced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that for the first half of 1991 repossessions


amounted to exactly 0·4 of I per cent. of all mortgages. In other words, 99·6 per cent. of all mortgages were not repossessed. Even bearing in mind that those figures will presumably increase somewhat in the second half of the year, to look at those figures is an exercise in flaccid hyperbole which does not take the argument forward.
Secondly, anyone who has ever done debt counselling —I have done it in the context of matrimonial breakdown when I have acted as a solicitor—will know that, when trying to rearrange a person's debts, it is often those who ask most for the money who must be paid off first. They want to see what money a person has available. To say that the money is available but earmarked for mortgage does not impress those who press most strongly for the repayment of a particular debt. It would give a measure of security to people to be able to say that they do not receive the money and it cannot be treated as part of their income. No one who has not been in this position or who has not acted for people in this position can know the terrible pressure to pay the worst, the most pressing, debt immediately. This is a real advantage, and will help debt counsellors.
Finally, it has been hinted at in this debate and certainly in the country that in some way the Government may be passing on their responsibilities by asking mortgage lenders to play a part in helping those who face repossession. I would not want to generalise, but there are some specifics that the House can know about.
I know of a case in my constituency where a major building society advanced a mortgage to a man earning £8,000 a year in fairly insecure circumstances. It took into account his wife's £4,000 a year when it was obvious from their family circumstances that she was likely to become pregnant again. On an income of £12,000 a year, it advanced a mortgage of £40,000. To add insult to injury, the building society then sold them an endowment policy. That may not be a typical case but, equally, it is not an isolated case.
When that can happen in the marketplace it in no way absolves people from the responsibility to look after themselves and to bear in mind that they must borrow responsibly. At the same time, the disparity in the bargaining position means that if on occasions building societies are capable of behaving in that way, when a proper mortgage rescue plan is put to them, they have a responsibility to join in. That is why it is entirely proper for the Government to say that, although they will take the lead, they expect others also to play a part.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I will not detain the House long. I fear that there is an anomaly in the present regime for paying mortgage interest payments through the Benefits Agency which I hope will be addressed in the Bill or the regulations that will be made under it.
The anomaly was brought to my attention rather forcefully during the past 24 hours by a constituency case in Stamford. I understand that at present—the position has been the same for some time and will continue under the proposed regime—where a claimant for income support receives mortgage interest payments from the Benefits Agency, the claimant may sell his or her existing

house and move into a new one. The mortgage interest payments continue to be met so long as the claimant remains eligible. Clearly, that provision is sensible, particularly where the claimant is trading down, having offered a decline in his or her financial position. I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, I am very much in favour of it.
The problem arises because, whereas normally a mortgage lender would look to the creditworthiness of the individual borrower, in particular to his or her salary level, in this case the only cash flow available to the claimant is income support and mortgage interest payments that are being met by the Benefits Agency. It follows that the building society, bank or lender must look to those payments as security and needs some assurance that that cash flow will be available to meet the interest payments on the renewed mortgage. When the claimant has moved house, the mortgage is formally considered as a new one.
The problem is that the Benefits Agency is not allowed, under the rules imposed on it by the Department of Social Security, to give any formal commitment to the lender that the mortgage interest payments will be met—even a commitment that is hedged with certain conditions. It is impossible for the Benefits Agency even to state formally to the lender or potential lender that the claimant is, at the relevant time, entitled to receive mortgage interest payments from the agency.
Clearly there is a mismatch in such circumstances and it is impossible for the lender to decide to lend until he has some assurance that the mortgage interest payments will be met. Equally, it is no doubt impossible for the Benefits Agency to give any assurance to the claimant until the mortgage lender has made a commitment to lend. That can be a heart-rending problem for someone who has to move house while being dependent upon payments from the Benefits Agency.
That problem is being experienced by one of my constituents in Stamford and no doubt he is losing a lot of sleep tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues will consider this matter. It would be ideal if I were told that I had misunderstood, that there was no problem and that my constituent has nothing to worry about. If the problem appears to be slightly less easy to resolve than the theory suggests, I hope that I might trespass on their time by supplying them with the details of my constituent's case.

Mr. Graham Allen: Some weeks ago the Financial Times put an interesting perspective on the debate when it explained that the mortgage interest payments from income support were to be paid direct to the lenders, because that meant that tenants avoided the temptation of wasting that income support on food.
Such thinking belongs to the same bracket of unbelievable cheek as that displayed by Lord Hanson and Lord White. They took some time off from their destruction of British manufacturing industry to visit the House of Lords in their Rolls-Royces. They did so to vote in favour of the proposal that the poorest people—those on income support—should still pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax in its last year. That behaviour and the thinking revealed in the Financial Times typifies the attitude that many Conservative Members adopt towards poverty and


the problem of repossessions. That is how they deal with people who are suffering because of 13 years of Government economic mismanagement.
What we are witnessing tonight is the parliamentary clean-up operation for the publicity stunt of November and December. when the Government wanted to create the headlines to give the impression that something was being done about the repossession crisis that they had created. The Chancellor of the Exechequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security came to the House to make their respective announcements. The Prime Minister got his publicity with the usual fawning headlines. The editorials gave the Government what they sought2014;the suggestion that somehow they had produced the solution to the problem. But they created that problem.
Tonight we are the bit players in the tidying-up operation necessary to get the legislation through. That is a measure of how seriously the Government view this problem.
Since that day, not one family has benefited from the scheme that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security put forward. Not one family has benefited from all that publicity. The only beneficiary has been the Conservative party, serving its own electoral purposes.
I am glad to see the Minister for Housing and Planning here tonight. He may even say a few words about the scheme's success so far. After all the alleged effort on his behalf, as far as we know—the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security may enlighten us when she winds up the debate—only one building society is pursuing a scheme in respect of mortgage assistance. All that sound and fury just for one scheme that is not even operative at present. If a family that is suffering or threatened with repossession goes along to the Nationwide, it will not yet be assisted. Was the scheme worth all that effort and publicity?
Many good, imaginative and creative schemes are available, many of which were proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). There are ways out of the problem, and the trend of repossessions can be reduced. In those circumstances, what is needed is the will to do it, rather than trying to kid people in the newspapers. The Government must put the money where it is necessary so that people can buy new homes or, better still, stay in their homes.
Last year, 75,000 people suffered repossessions and, according to UBS Phillips and Drew, even more people will probably suffer repossessions in the coming year. I hope that those figures will decline and that the Government will find the will to make real progress in the matter, but in the several months that have elapsed since the big hoo-hah for electoral purposes, little political will has been invested in getting those schemes off the ground.
The basis on which the Government are bringing forward the Bill is that the lenders—building societies and others—are not receiving the element of income support that they should receive. I have no doubt that, in some cases, that is true, but it is staggering that a Government who have been in power for 13 years and seen the number of repossessions rise steadily have undertaken no serious research into the facts.
How many people are not using their income support as we would wish? If we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he says, "Dunno." if we ask the Secretary of State, he answers, "Couldn't tell you, really." If we ask the Minister, he answers, "Disproportionate costs—can't tell you."

Despite the fact that they do not know the basis on which the scheme has been proposed, they are prepared to divert what may amount to £350 million to building societies.
That is not a bad little earner and will provide some nice cash flow for building societies. The only basis on which that figure can be put forward is a Council of Mortgage Lenders' survey conducted by telephone. Hon. Members know how carefully we should treat results discovered by telephone surveys, yet the Government consider that £350 million will do the job, and they have gone ahead.
The figures are so high because the amount spent on the mortgage element of income support is 10 times higher than it was in 1979. I hope that the Government are thoroughly ashamed of the fact that, in their tenure of office, that figure has risen tenfold. The party of home owners has turned into the party of wreckers and repossessers. They now seek, at the bitter dog-end of a Parliament, 13 years too late, to make amends.
Who is responsible for the foul-up? Who would have been stupid enough to block direct payments when they were on offer four or five years ago? Who would have been silly enough to prevent the income support going directly to the lenders? We know where the trail leads it is heavily signposted and it leads back to 1986, when the then hapless Social Security Minister, talking about direct payments to lenders, said that that would be "a tighter requirement" than the Government wanted. Since the present Prime Minister, the leader of the property-owning democracy, said those words, 100,000 additional families have had their homes repossessed. We always bandy statistics around in the Chamber, but it is worth rolling that one round again—100,000.
Before 1986, mortgage interest payments were available from the beginning of the claim. We are talking about whether we should put back the other half of the payments that are now missing from the first 16 weeks. In 1986, the cost in the first 16 weeks and thereafter was met. The change was deliberately introduced by the Prime Minister, who was then a Social Security Minister. He introduced the rule that cut the permissible pay-out in half for the first four months of the claim, so that thousands more people were plunged into mortgage debt.
The then Social Security Minister said that repossessions would not happen. The Labour party and the building societies warned him of the results of that policy, but he pressed ahead with exactly the wrong measure at exactly the wrong time. It was the same sort of Mr. Magoo decision-making that has characterised his leading us ever deeper into recession. I know that he cannot help not being up to the job, but that is of little consolation to people who have lost their homes or jobs, or been made bankrupt by the Government's policies.
A number of effective, imaginative and creative schemes exist that could help people. We need a change of Government to ensure that those schemes are put to work.

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Listening to Opposition Members tonight, one would imagine that the position was entirely that of gloom and doom. I do not deny the miseries that we are seeking to alleviate through the measure, but as the Opposition appear to have a vested political interest in making everyone believe that matters cannot and are not getting better, and there is no ray of light for those who


own their own homes, I shall direct Opposition Members to an article in the "Money Mail" section of today's Daily Mail. The article quotes the very building societies about which the Opposition have been challenging us tonight. The Opposition wanted us to say what progress those societies had been making.
Opposition Members seem to associate progress against repossessions with a narrow package of mortgage rescue schemes, but what matters is that building societies and lenders take measures to reduce repossessions in whatever way they see fit as a result of our introducing the provisions. The societies and lenders do not have to use any one route.
One large building society has said that, already—this is not in the future—nine out of 10 of its arrears cases have come to some form of arrangement with it. Another has said that rather than making loans to housing associations at a soft rate, it would prefer to renegotiate packages with the borrowers themselves at levels that they can afford.
We also read in "Money Mail" today that the Woolwich repossessed 15 per cent. fewer properties in the second six months of 1991. The Abbey National says that short-term arrears are in decline and repossessions are either stable or falling off, not increasing. Cheltenham and Gloucester has fewer short-term arrears and repossessed fewer properties in the second half of 1991. The Halifax says that short-term arrears and repossessions are in decline.

Dr. Kumar: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. Figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders to be released at the end of next week will show that there were some 80,000 repossessions for 1991, which is much better than the 100,000 which were predicted.
I should like to address the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who quoted a figure of 10,000 from Phillips and Drew. That figure referred simply to the package which is before the House. He did not take into account the package which we announced before Christmas. On the basis of that estimate, Phillips and Drew says that some 45,000 repossessions will be favourably affected.
The view of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the number of repossessions is not shared by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. He said that the package will have very little effect. Whereas the Council of Mortgage Lenders was predicting 80,000 repossessions before, it says that as a result of this package it may be able to prevent 40,000.
May I turn a question round to the Opposition?

Dr. Kumar: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: In a minute; I have remembered the hon. Gentleman.
All evening, the Opposition have been saying that we cannot give figures for how many people will be affected. If the Council of Mortgage Lenders is telling us, as it has been, that there is a potential to save 40,000 repossessions, and we had done nothing about it and said that we could not measure the effect, would not the Opposition have been the first to say that we should have been listening to what was being said?

Mr. Kirkwood: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) first, because I promised to do so.

Dr. Kumar: If the figures for the building societies are as stated, why do we not see the result in local authorities? The number of people becoming homeless is still increasing in Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh when it should be declining. If the case that the Minister argues so vociferously is right, it should be translated into that.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is completely confusing repossession with the larger question of homelessness. The figures that I have given are those of the building societies.
As to the interesting and expensive speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), I want to be quite clear about what he promised. It was that the Labour party, in the unlikely event of its ever being in a position to do so, would abolish the 50 per cent. rule for the first 16 weeks and would pay 100 per cent. right from the start. In other words, he would pay for some 40,000 applicants at an average of £34 a week. That was a pledge, we were told. Is it an immediate pledge? I will be happy to give way if he will tell us. Is this to be done on day one, year one, Parliament one? Do we know?
The hon. Gentleman urged us to extend our help with mortgage payments to those on low incomes, not on income support. He did not even restrict help to those on family credit, if I understood his speech correctly. Is the Labour party promising to do that? How much would it cost? We reckon that, if we extended it just to those on family credit, it would come to some half a billion pounds.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Lady tell us how much it is costing for bed and breakfast for all the people who have had their homes taken from them?

Miss Widdecombe: If Opposition Members distribute pledges, they must put a price on them. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that he would effect savings on bed and breakfast by abolishing the provision?

Mr. Allen: The hon. Lady seems to be practising for life in opposition already. She should remember that for at least the next eight weeks she will still be a Minister. The costs of bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be available to her and the Government. Perhaps she will give us the figures. The figures for future expenditure will become available as and when the expenditure is incurred. This expenditure, caused by the Government's incompetence having forced people into repossession of their homes and hence into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, is taking place now. So what are the figures?

Miss Widdecombe: Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not restricted to repossession cases. We are discussing repossessions. We are discussing what Labour proposes. Opposition Members have consistently said that we have caused a lot of misery by our income support rates. I want to know: by how much Labour would raise those rates; when they will raise them; and whether this is a pledge or a priority.
The 16-week restriction has given rise to one of the major criticisms levelled at our policy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) repeated the


fabrication that when the Prime Minister was Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for social security he caused or contributed to the problem of repossessions by introducing this rule. But we were told at the time, in writing, by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that that rule would not be a cause of repossession and that it saw no reason for anyone to leave home as a result of it. We have been told the same since.
So the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is that introducing 100 per cent. from day one would make no difference—this is not a cause of repossessions.
We must strike a balance between the use of taxpayers' money to help people to acquire assets and the people's need to keep a roof over their heads. We have therefore struck that balance. There is no effect on repossessions that we can measure, or that the Council of Mortgage Lenders will admit to, so—

Mr. Allen: On 19 December 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) quoted a statement by the Building Societies Association in 1986, as follows:
Building societies regret that the government has decided to limit assistance which unemployed owner-occupiers receive through supplementary benefit".—[Official Report, 19 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 463.]

Miss Widdecombe: For the second time running, the hon. Gentleman has quoted only the first part of that statement. Immediately following that quotation, the association continued:
Societies will do all they can to help people where benefit is restricted, and there is no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure.
The hon. Gentleman should quote in full, or not at all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already put the hon. Gentleman right on this point, so either he is insulting the House by making the same point again when he knows the truth, or he is hoping that we have even shorter memories than he has.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned what he called the diversion of £350 million to building societies. That was no diversion: the money was always intended for the lenders in the first place. There is no question of their having made what the hon. Gentleman called a nice little earner. They were supposed to receive the money; indeed, that was the only reason why it was handed over at all.
The next question concerns multiple deductions. As was said earlier, the Bill does not affect multiple deductions because those are taken, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North agreed, from basic income support. These deductions will be taken only from the amount of income support which was calculated for mortgages.
From the talk tonight, one would have imagined that there were not already ceilings and limits on direct deductions. There are. We should remember that the sums

made over in income support include an amount for community charge and an amount for ordinary living expenses, and that they should, therefore, be used for this purpose. When social fund loans deductions which are on top of the 15 per cent. ceiling are made, they are flexible and negotiable. Often—[Interruption.] The problem with Opposition Members is that they do not talk to enough local offices. Often people have large numbers of social fund loans simultaneously, but they are paying off only one at a time. I can tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that the problem is well addressed.
I sum up—

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister is making heavy weather of the point. Has she any estimate for the House of the repossessions that will be saved as a direct result of the Bill?

Miss Widdecombe: All we have are the estimates of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. As I have said, we are responding to that body. If we had not responded to the estimate that we could save that number of repossessions, we should have been heavily criticised at the time. We have the latest forecast that the package, in addition to the package that we introduced before Christmas, together with the measures being taken by building societies, could save 40,000. With the measures only having been announced in November, it is too early to say precisely how many will be saved.
We have responded to the request of the lenders. We have done our best to ensure that money is going where it should go. We have got, in return, an agreement from lenders to limit repossessions, some of the results of which I gave earlier. The Bill is a humane and welcome measure. Opposition Members, although they do not oppose it, have not the courage to welcome it and to praise it as it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [3 February.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS) BILL [MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of that Act; and
(b) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill

Immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [3 February]

Clauses I and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

The Secretary of State shall at six-monthly intervals lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the scheme authorised by this Act.'.—[Mr. Bradley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, because I am sure, from Ministers' contributions to the Second Reading debate, that the Government will welcome the new clause. All we seek through it is the opportunity for the Secretary of State to report to the House on a six-monthly basis on the workings of the Bill, which will then be an Act.
From what the Under-Secretary of State said, it is clear that, although the time has not yet elapsed by which the Government can give a sufficient consideration of the consequences of the Bill, they will be able to do so in due course. The Secretary of State will be able to report and to give us the details that we have been seeking tonight about how many repossessions have been avoided because of the Bill. He could perhaps widen the report and give details of the rescue schemes that have finally been put in place with the building societies, say how they are .operating in practice, how many people are included in them, what is their cost, what is their rental element and how much housing benefit is being paid on the affordable rents that I hope will be introduced under them.
The new clause would give us an excellent opportunity to return to the subject to determine whether the Bill's effects have alleviated the desperate plight of those suffering under the threat of repossession. I hope that, in view of the spirit in which I have moved the new clause, it will be welcomed and accepted by the Government.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I shall be equally brief. I cannot respond positively to the new clause, although I have some sympathy with it. I hope that, over the time that I have been involved in social security, I have proved that we are anxious to monitor and report back to the House regularly on what happens with our legislation. There are sufficient opportunities open to hon. Members, let alone Front-Bench spokesmen, through Adjournment debates, questions, written questions, and so on, to ask the Government to produce the figures on the implementation of any policy— [Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Haynes: Carry on.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
To produce, at considerable expense and complication, the sort of figures for which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked on a six-monthly basis would be excessive. The Government have no intention to disguise or shield from the House the effects of any policy we introduce, least of all this one. We stand ready to produce, as requested by the House, the figures on the implementation of our policy and its effects. I cannot believe that it would be sensible to compel this or any successor Government to produce—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: To save making a speech, may I ask the Minister a simple question? If he is not prepared to produce a six-monthly report, can he assure us that the statutory instruments that will follow from this primary legislation will be under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure?

Mr. Scott: The Bill is not a mere enabling Bill—it is properly a Bill that includes most of the effects of the regulations. It is more appropriate that the regulations should be under the negative procedure, but it is open to the Opposition to pray against them and to have them discussed, if that is what they wish. There are ample opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they wish to check the implementation of the Bill, to have it discussed openly in the House. I do not believe that the measure being advocated by the hon. Member for Withington is sensible.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister's reply was disappointing. We cannot help but be concerned that, because the Government are not prepared to report back to the House, they may have more to hide than they are suggesting tonight. I assure the House that we shall rigorously pursue every possible avenue to seek the necessary information. Although we are often hindered in that task, I am sure that all my hon. Friends will use every device possible to ensure that the consequences of the Bill and the real statistics that we are seeking from the Government—not comments from "Money Mail" or the Council of Mortgage Lenders —will tell us exactly what is happening with mortgage repossessions as a consequence of the Bill.
In the light of the Government's assurance of rigorous pursuit in this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Tees and Hartlepool

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is appropriate that we should adjourn the House on a short debate on the operation of the Ports Act 1991. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Transport endorsed the privatisation of the first trust port in accordance with the powers granted to him by the Act.
The legislation privatising trust ports is unlike a great deal of other Conservative legislation in past years, in which the Government sought to avoid responsibility. The fingerprints of the Secretary of State for Transport may be found all over the Ports Act. Not only does he oversee the sale of the ports, laying down conditions; he also makes the final decision on criteria set down by this Department.
It has always struck me as curious that, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—I have heard a variety of speehes from him—used to have to tootle along to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money for Jaguar, while feeling that the decisions involved were commercial decisions on investment, more appropriate to business men. In the case of the Ports Act, the Secretary of State bears on his shoulders a series of duties for which he is held accountable to the House.
We know that the Act came into force because the Treasury saw a variety of pots of gold dotted around the country in our trust ports. Section 13 makes that clear when it talks of levy on initial disposals of securities of successor companies. In short, half the pot of gold in each port would go to the Treasury; the other half would go back into the successor company.
If the Treasury had its eye on the pots of gold, however, so did other predators. When the successor company to Tees and Hartlepool, Teesside Holdings, took over the port, it immediately picked up the £35 million cash asset that was standing in the bank, in the port's name, at the time of the takeover.
Whatever arguments may be advanced about the first privatisation of a trust port—and there are many—the fact is that, of a purchase price of £180 million, with £90 million going to the Treasury and with cash to the tune of £35 million in the Treasury, not to mention a pension fund with some £38 million in the bank, Teesside Holdings has paid no more than £55 million for assets worth £180 million. Opposition Members feel that that constitutes naked capitalism of the worst kind on the part of this Conservative Government—capitalism at its most blatant. It is cynical; it deprives a local community of its port; and it is immoral.
When deciding to endorse the bid of Teesside Holdings, in his written response to a planted parliamentary question, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he had considered representations about Humberside Holdings and other companies associated with the Holloway family. He was required to do so because Humberside Holdings is one of a trio of companies in the consortium that became the successful bidder for the port of Tees and Hartlepool.
The Secretary of State made the following statement about John Holloway, who was intended to be chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority:

I have found nothing in the evidence put before me concerning either Mr. John Holloway or Humberside Holdings which would make it proper for me to withhold my consent to the proposed sale to Teesside Holdings Ltd."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 501.]
Mr. Kevin Fletcher, a solicitor on Teesside, who advised the Tees and Hartlepool board on the sale, advised me that the backgrounds of all the bidders were fully taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State claim ignorance, for I gave his Department a full file on matters surrounding both the Holloway family and its associate companies.
This is important, because one of the criteria which was laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Ports Act, and to which he alluded in his parliamentary response, was the fitness of the bidders to run the port. The Secretary of State was quite right not to take into account the past criminal records of Douglas and Barry Holloway, nor did I ask that he should. We know from newspaper reports that Douglas Holloway was convicted in November 1980 of bribing officials at the Scunthorpe works of British Steel with two of his directors, including his son Barry. He was fined £11,000 with £10,000 costs, and given a 12-month suspended sentence. Barry Holloway was fined £1,500, received a six-month suspended sentence and was gaoled for seven days for contempt of court. John Holloway was charged and acquitted and, by way of explanation of how he found himself in the dock in the first place, he said that he had just left school at the time.
Both Douglas and Barry Holloway were on the board of Humberside Holdings throughout the bidding process for the port of Tees and Hartlepool. They promptly resigned on 21 December when facts of their criminal records became known to the public. Mr. W. G. Andrews, who is now the non-executive chairman of the new board of Tees and Hartlepool, indicated, when asked, that he thought that the Holloways had paid their debts to society. As it happens, it turns out that society, on both sides of the Atlantic, paid their debts for them.
As the Secretary of State for Transport knew when he made his first decision under the Ports Act, the most significant company in the Holloway group was Interdom. That company went into liquidation on 15 November 1991, during the bidding process, with a summary of liabilities to non-preferential creditors in the amount of £1,740,000, and an estimated total deficiency, as regards members, of £2,240,527. Those directors listed as holding office during the last three years were Douglas Holloway, Barry Holloway and John Holloway, all of whom were involved in the bid for the port of Tees and Hartlepool. As I have already said, John Holloway is now the new chief executive.
A full file on Interdom Ltd. was submitted by Ernst and Young to the Department of Trade and Industry, marked "Private and Confidential" and dated 29 November 1991 —this at the very time that the former non-executive board was debating the credentials of the bidders. The Secretary of State for Transport was aware of this when he satisfied himself that Mr. John Holloway was a fit and proper person to run a port. Thus, while he was making that decision, the Department of Trade and Industry was considering a file submitted by the receivers on the selfsame people. The Secretary of State knew that when he


decided that Humberside Holdings, with the same Holloway shareholders, was also composed of fit and proper persons.
Nor could it be said, when it came to receivership, that the Holloways were respecters of particular creditors or persons. Thus, American Express found itself owed £50.15. Arthur Anderson was owed £57,542. Mercury Carphones was also owed money. That is an interesting thought for you, Madam Deputy Speaker: running a port without car phones. One can imagine the Holloways being unable to phone back and forth because, when their company went into receivership, they owed Mercury £827.72. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State concluded that they were fit and proper people to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool.
There is a significant statement appended to the file sent to the Department of Trade and Industry, to the effect that, prior to the receivership date, the company had a credit balance of £1,658,817. That amount had been set off against the bank borrowings of other group companies by the company's bankers, pursuant to their security. The offsetting arrangement has, according to the statement on file at the Department of Trade and Industry, created
inter-company balances with other group companies which are also in receivership and the balances arc not therefore recoverable.
"Other companies in receivership"—but the Secretary of State declared in his written response that he had considered the record of the bidding company and satisfied himself, or words to that effect, that it was fit and proper to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool. In fact, the receivership of Interdom and other group companies referred to in the file submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry is only the last in a long line which looks like a trail of broken dreams and promises—rather like the tragic James Dean posters that one sees from time to time.
Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. were associate companies of Humberside Holdings Ltd. The holding of Humberside Holdings Ltd. in Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. amounted to 50 per cent. and, in the case of John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. to 33 per cent. John Holloway and Frederick Russel Brown were directors of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. as well as directors of Humberside Holdings Ltd.
I shall return to Frederick Russel Brown in a moment, because he is a director of the new Tees and Hartlepool port and will work in an executive capacity alongside John Holloway. Both companies of which they were directors went into liquidation, leaving the Government to pick up the bill for redundancy payments to stevedores amounting in the case of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. to £3,340,001 and in the case of John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. to £3,598,314.
Let us look across the Atlantic. Interdom owned a company in the United States called Contract Marine Carriers Inc. with head offices in Richmond, Virginia. Douglas Holloway was listed as one of the officers—in fact, he was listed as chairman and president. The chief accountant was Mr. Frederick Brown who, as I said, is now to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of State in the discharge

of his duties under the Ports Act 1991. When Contract Marine Carriers Inc. went into involuntary bankruptcy, Interdom Holdings Ltd. was the principal shareholder.
Just prior to the involuntary bankruptcy, moneys amounting to $172,250 which rightly belonged to the creditors were transferred from the Sovran bank, Richmond, Virginia to the National Westminster bank, 52 Threadneedle street, London, and to the Hungarian International bank, Princess house, 95 Gresham street, London EC2. Those concerned with the transfers were Douglas Holloway and Interdom Ltd., of which Mr. John Holloway was a founding shareholder and director.
When an attorney representing the creditors in the United States—Mr. C. Thomas Green III—sent a letter to the company, a reply was sent by McHale and Co. denying that Interdom Holdings Ltd. was or had ever been a shareholder in Contract Marine Carriers Inc. A search at Companies house revealed that, although Contract Marine Carriers (UK) Ltd. was registered, as was Contract Marine Carriers (Garston) Ltd., there was no reference to Contract Marine Carriers Ltd. in the United States. In the end, Mr. Douglas Holloway accepted responsibility for the company in a letter dated 3 April 1986.
So we see the link between a company in the United States—Contract Marine Carriers Inc.—and Douglas Holloway; through Mr. Holloway to Humberside; through Humberside to Interdom; and from Interdom, through Humberside again, into the consortium, and from that consortium to the new company created under the Ports Act.
We come again to Mr. Fred Brown. Not only was he listed as chief accountant, but—between 20 and 29 January 1986, shortly before Contract Marine Carriers Inc. ceased trading, because of the involuntary bankruptcy— he went to Richmond, Virginia. One of the reasons given for the involuntary bankruptcy of the American company was that the revenue was being collected abroad, and debts were not being paid in the United States. In short, the money owed directly to the company was being funnelled off to the United Kingdom.
There was also serious doubt whether the company was properly registered in the United States in accordance with the Jones Act There were violations not only of United States law but of United Kingdom law, because the company was not registered as one of the companies in the Interdom group.
What do we see when the Secretary of State for Transport has made the first decision? We see that two directors involved in two companies that have gone into receivership are now to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool—at a time when the associate company was not only in liquidation but had been referred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
It is my full intention to call for the disqualification of the directors Fred Brown and John Holloway in accordance with the Company Directors Disqualification Act, 1986, and to submit a full file to the Department of Trade and Industry, calling for it to take action in the public interest. A disqualification order under section 8 of that Act should be made.
The reason for my decision is the inability of the Secretary of State for Transport to look the facts fully in the face and to act upon them in accordance with his duties under the Ports Act. I shall submit the file because, in my view, there is prima facie evidence of a breach of commercial morality, of gross incompetence and of


recklessness. There is evidence, too, that the two directors are not fit and proper persons, and are not competent to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool.
Other factors, too, make me determined to take the matter a stage further. Six and a half million pounds of taxpayers' money has never been seen again; it was paid to stevedores so that two companies could go into liquidation and then set up in business again. The law takes a dim view of such a situation—rather more so, apparently, than does the Secretary of State for Transport.
According to the law, the amount of Crown debt is an important factor in determining unfitness. I have already mentioned the £6·5 million of Crown debts owed by the two companies, which the Department of Transport has been unable to recover because of the massive debts that the companies have run up, and their inability to meet any of them.
The number of liquidations that directors have been involved in is a relevant factor, too. It is no coincidence or accident that Fred Brown and John Holloway have been involved in previous liquidations, nor that John Holloway was a founding member of Interdom Ltd., and retired, or resigned, from the firm in May when he saw that the writing was on the wall. However, he is listed in the DTI file as a director for the past three years.
The way in which the companies have been managed in the past is another significant reason why the matter should be referred to the DTI with a view to having those two directors disqualified.
I have already referred to the issue of morality. We see here the confluence of Government immorality and bad legislation.
After 13 years, the Tory Government have no sense of morality and no sense of what is due to the taxpayer. We hear so much about Labour's tax policy, yet £6·5 million of my money, your money, Madam Deputy Speaker, the money of other hon. Members and the money of those who live in our country has simply been given away to firms and individuals who, as I have shown tonight. have lined up a whole series of liquidations in the United States and in this country.
We have seen incredulity on the part of the 15 trust ports of our land, which were lining themselves up for management-employee buy-outs only to shelve their plans. The ports of Tyne and of Ipswich have no further interest in privatisation. After two years, the Government's ports policy is totally incoherent.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State has delivered a kick in the teeth to the people of Cleveland and Cleveland Members who lobbied him, pointing out his errors at different times?

Mr. Bell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We saw the Secretary of State and he said, "I hear what you say," but he did not act upon what he heard.
We have seen immorality, bad legislation and a privatisation too far and we have seen —to paraphrase "Gone with the Wind"—that the Tories don't give a damn about Teesside.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): In the short time that is left, I shall attempt to answer some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has made. I will not be able to answer them all.
The hon. Gentleman said that the operation of the Ports Act 1991 is in some chaos, and I shall come to that matter a little later.
The hon. Gentleman said that we had not fully considered his representations. I can assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considered in great detail all the representations that were made. That is why a considerable time elapsed between his original statement that he was minded to accept and the announcement of the final decision to give the go-ahead. Any complaints that were made to us were taken seriously.
We have heard on numerous occasions that the only reason why the Government wanted the Ports Act on the statute book was that they wanted the money. That allegation has just been made again. Had that been our sole concern, we would have accepted the highest bid. The simple fact was that a recommendation was made to us by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Secretary of State accepted it.
We all know that Labour Members have consistently opposed all the measures that we have taken to free up the docks industry. Tonight they have yet again shown their total objection to any privatisation that gives opportunities to the people who work in the industry concerned. Such privatisations are anathema to the Opposition.
The enactment of the Ports Act was the latest stage in a process of deregulating the port industry. The abolition of the dock labour scheme did much for the THPA, freeing it from the constraints from which it had suffered for many years. The repeal of the dock labour scheme provisions was consistently opposed by the Opposition.
We believe that it is essential to have a competitive industry in which individual ports compete with each other for business in the marketplace. We believe that the right place for the larger trust ports is the private sector. As company ports, they will be able to compete on equal terms with the part of the ports industry that already lies in the private sector and which, by tonnage, already amounts to more than 50 per cent. of the industry. They will no longer be bound by the unnecessary constraints on their activities that their status as trust ports brings.
My right hon. and learned Friend delayed making his final decision on the sale of THPA until he had looked into the various matters that Opposition Members had raised about the sale. On 28 January, he announced that he had not found anything in the points raised that would justify him in not confirming his consent to the recommendation that the THPA board had made to him that the port should be sold to Teesside Holdings Ltd. This statement ended a period of uncertainty for the port which had the potential for doing real damage to the port itself. It was important that that period of uncertainty should be ended and I am sorry that Opposition Members seem to want to reopen the whole subject and to renew that uncertainty—

Dr. Kumar: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry, but I do not have the time to give way because I have not been left with enough time to reply. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
That is not and cannot be good for the port or the area that is serves. A few moments ago, I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker)


nodding his head in agreement, because that is exactly what the Opposition intend—to continue that uncertainty. That is disgraceful from any elected representative.

Dr. Kumar: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
The record of those earlier debates shows that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough's concern about the Act naturally centre upon the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool authority, as he has demonstrated this evening. Now that that privatisation has actually taken place, I am wondering whether this will be his swan song, or whether he will continue to take such a lively interest in the Act.
The hon. Gentleman's views on the Tees and Hartlepool port authority have not always been clear or consistent. During the debates in 1990 in this House on the authority's own Bill for privatising its undertaking, he was happy enough to denigrate the authority for having the temerity to be seeking privatisation at all. He was even more ready to attack the management for even thinking of buying the port. During the earlier stages of the passage of the Ports Act 1991, he was virtually silent on the question of management-employee buy-outs—perhaps he was undergoing some sort of fundamental change of heart and could not reconcile the way in which he had stopped the original private Bill from proceeding in the House.
By the later stages of the Bill, and particularly during this House's consideration of the amendments that were made in another place, the hon. Gentleman had become eloquent in favour of a management-employee buy-out for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, primarily, as he suggested, to protect the port from outsiders, who might even be foreign. Possibly the most consistent aspect of his approach—if this can be called "consistency"—has been to try to attack and undermine whenever possible the decisions of the authority, obstruct its privatisation at every turn, and to make that privatisation as uncertain, costly and damaging a business as he could.
The motto of the hon. Member's policy might perhaps have been that it was necessary to destroy the authority in order to save it from privatisation. That would be an approach typical of a party that values entrenched positions and the status quo so much that, in the unlikely event of the Opposition winning the next election, they would probably reintroduce the dock labour scheme and reimpose on the ports industry the shackles from which it has just been released. By contrast, the Government have done a lot for our ports industry. My right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 28 January will enable the THPA to embark on a period of development and expansion under its new owners.
Looking ahead to other trust port privatisations which are currently in progress, we continue to see the use of a range of objectives of sale as criteria against which the final bids are to be evaluated as being the best way of enabling each trust port authority to assess the competing bids that it receives, and to take into account, alongside the price offered, its concern about the future of its port.
As I have said, the Opposition frequently accused the Government during the debates on the Ports Act of recognising no other criterion for port sales except the price paid. That was untrue. We said at the time that we were prepared to consider other objectives apart from the price if those were of importance to individual ports, and that is what has happened in this case. It is an approach to privatisation that gives each individual port authority considerable flexibility and control over its own privatisation, a situation which I would have thought was welcome to both sides of the House, given the views that were expressed during debates on the Act. The port authority is the vendor in the sale of each port, and it must be for each bidder to convince the authority's board that his bid meets the objectives of the sale as completely as possible and more fully than any of his competitors' bids.
I reject most emphatically the attacks on the ports privatisation programme that the hon. Gentleman has made both in the media and in this House.
I turn now to the progress that has already been made, since the Bill became law last July. One trust port—Tees and Hartlepool—has now completed its privatisation, and no fewer than four others—Medway, Clyde, Forth and Tilbury—have begun the process. I remind hon. Members that they comprise five out of the country's eight largest trust ports. Those developments clearly show that our assessment of the need for Government legislation to enable the trust ports to enter the private sector was right. The privatisation programme resulting from the Ports Act remains firmly on target.
By contrast, we know that, under a Labour Government, the trust ports would have no such opportunity. Not only that, but they would still be saddled with the enormous dead weight of the dock labour scheme, constantly draining away their resources and their competitiveness to no purpose. That is why this Government's long-term strategy for the ports industry is the better road for that industry to take, and why the trust ports privatisation programme, under the successful operation of the Ports Act, is an essential part of that strategy.
Having thoroughly scrutinised all the bids, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority board decided to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past One o'clock.